Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
Hot Lead Anniversary
May 5, 1976
ATTEMPTED COUP FAILS IN TURKEY
ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) – The Nationalist government of Prime Minister Alparslan Turkes has survived an apparent attempt by junior military officers during the morning of Tuesday, May 4 to remove it in a coup. Details are sparse as the government has clamped down, strictly censoring all news reports coming out of Turkey. The coup attempt came one day after the first anniversary of Prime Minister Turkes’ assumption of office.
A government spokesman did emphasize that Prime Minister Turkes and his Cabinet are “in good health and not in any physical way impeded from their government duties.”
Prime Minister Turkes appeared on national television during the supper hour on Tuesday and denounced all “recidivists and disloyal elements” in a lengthy (two hour) harangue which shed little light on what exactly had occurred earlier in the day.
According to sources close to the Turkish government, a number of subordinate commanders attempted to storm the Meclis (the parliament buildings) in Ankara and arrest Prime Minister Turkes and a number of his key ministers who were meeting inside. Shots were fired between the rebel group and soldiers who remained loyal to the government, as well as the government’s security forces, known as the Grey Wolves. The rebels were overwhelmed in a battle inside the building housing the Prime Minister’s office and Cabinet rooms, and most of them were killed. The remainder, some wounded, were taken for interrogation by the Grey Wolves. Turkish government sources have declined to identify how many there were, who they were or what their precise motivation might have been.
The fact that the rebels were apparently junior officers, supported by some of their troops, suggests that there is continuing unrest within the lower ranks of the armed forces against the ruling Nationalist Movement Party (NMP) which is currently the only legal political party in Turkey. Some junior officers are said to be dissatisfied with the Army leadership’s support of one party rule, along with the command of Turkish forces in the recent war with Greece. This adds to grievances and a sense of national humiliation over the outcome of the Cyprus crisis.
The military – and the army in particular – which has played a high political profile role in all Turkish governments since the Republic was declared in October 1923, has been purged twice in recent years. After the failed invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the previous regime purged the top officer ranks. After the NMP came to power on May 3, 1975, with military support, the top ranks were again purged of those who opposed NMP rule. As a consequence a number of mid-level officers, generally thought to support the NMP, were promoted into the senior ranks.
The junior officer ranks were mainly filled with conscripts from Turkey’s better universities, together with military academy cadets whose graduations were rushed in order to meet manpower requirements. Many of these conscripts and new officers were not politically vetted in the process, thus drawing members of opposition parties, now banned, into the armed services. Bitterness and resentment against the NMP and the previous government have also festered over a series of national humiliations in Cyprus and Greece. Tuesday’s action may have represented a bubbling-up of frustration among these junior officers. A further purge of the officer ranks is now to be expected.
Turkey was a semi-democracy until July 1974 when, after the failed invasion of Cyprus, then President Koruturk took direct authoritarian control of the government and State. Prime Minister Turkes, took power in May 1975 and arranged the ouster of President Koruturk, replacing him as President in July with General Omer Gruler, an NMP loyalists, who, as President, carries out mainly ceremonial duties. The NMP government restored some of the previous democratic forms, such as the office of Prime Minister, but banned all opposition parties. At the same time his regime gave the NMP party militia, the Grey Wolves, government power and has been converting them into a state security force which is beginning to parallel the military in power and capabilities within Turkey.
According to Prof Fahir Oladem, Professor Turkish Studies at the University of London, the rise of the Grey Wolves as a security and secret police force has created a great deal of resentment within society as a whole.
“Turkey has never been a true democracy, not in the western sense,” comments Prof. Oladem, “but this is a new degree of dictatorship that is becoming increasingly resented. Among the military in particular, this parallel power structure in the form of the Grey Wolves has become a direct threat to the Army’s central role in national affairs. All officers may find this disturbing, but the upper echelon have found a place in Turkes’ new order, and as such have been co-opted for now. It is the younger ones, especially the ambitious and idealistic among them, who would view the Grey Wolves as the greatest threat to their future. And we must not rule out those who see Turkes one-party rule as simply wrong, and want to restore a multi-party system for ideological reasons.”
“For the moment Turkes has found an outlet for people’s resentments through the war with the Greeks, and by renewing military operations against the Kurdish and Armenian separatists. All of these capture nationalist feeling and channel it outside. But the humiliation in Greece has been a set-back, which has re-focused attention on the failure of the military forces and the government.”
“Added to this is the fact that the economy situation, which is under international embargo, is getting desperate. Thus far Turkes has been able to unite the Turkish people against outsiders, blaming the western powers and ethnic separatists for national problems. The Soviets, Iranians and Iraqis are all reportedly assisting the government in by-passing UN sanctions, so Turkes has been able to deliver some goods despite the blockade. This prolongs his honeymoon with a core constituency of supporters, generally the lower middle class and small traders.
“But with the failure in Greece, and continuing shortages and inflation, he will not be able to play the foreign card forever. The Turkish people will begin to look at him and his government as the source of their problems. This coup attempt is most likely the first in what will become an increasing frequency of internal disturbances aimed at forcing Turkes from office, much as he used civil unrest and dissatisfaction to force Koruturk from office last year.”
The growing closeness of the Turkes regime with the Soviets has also raised eyebrows in a generally conservative nation which has long regarded the Soviet Union (and the Russian Empire that preceded it) as the nation’s primary strategic foe. Prime Minister Turkes had signed several trade and military supply deals with the Soviet government, as well the two nations have signed a non-aggression pact. When western powers entered Cyprus last fall, the Turkes government declared that it would review its membership in NATO. Despite Turkes’ controversial statement last summer that “NATO is dead”, Turkey currently remains a full member of NATO. According to a NATO spokesperson in Brussels, Turkey’s membership in the alliance is “under suspension, pending review.”
“The current side deals with the Soviet Union are inconsistent with the commitments of the North Atlantic charter,” the NATO spokesman added. All major American facilities, including Incirlik air base, have been closed. The United States has also suspended all weapons sales to Turkey.
The United States, French and British Ambassadors, together with many ambassadors from smaller NATO countries, have been recalled, and diplomatic relations are handled at a more junior level.
The Soviet Union has used the threat of a veto at the U.N. Security Council to soften sanctions against the Turkish regime. Turkey has also won support from the Non-Aligned Movement, although many of these nations remain divided over the nature of the Turkes regime.
“We understand the desire to forge an independent course, and we would not object to Soviet bi-lateral relations with Turkey, that is an affair between the nations,” said Algerian President Houari Boumediène, the Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement. “But a number of our members have some discomfort over the Soviet relation with what is outwardly a fascist state, at least in form. However, as has been pointed out, the Turkes government is seeking to uplift the ordinary working people of Turkey over the long established elites, which is a positive factor, of course. And it is not the policy of our movement to dictate the internal affairs of any nation.“
“In many Islamic countries the Turkish situation has been painted as a struggle between Islamic Turkey and the Christian crusaders from Greece and the west,” Prof. Oladem adds. “That conflict has been aggravated by events in Lebanon and especially by the western occupation of Syria. The West won some points by rescuing the Turkish, Islamic minority on Cyprus, but much of the Islamic world has adopted a wait and see attitude about how this will come out.”
“As such, it doesn’t matter so much what label we in the West put on the Turkes government, the fact that he is standing-up to the Christian world is the important factor. Dealing with the Soviet Union, despite its involvement in Syria and a recent anti-Islamic episode in Andijan, is commonly accepted as a strategic move, just as Nasser did. The association makes western communists, and some Arab socialists uncomfortable, of course, but this is not a priority in the wider Islamic community. Some Islamic regimes, particularly among the Arab states, are just as happy to see their more radical socialist opponents placed in this ideological discomfort.”
“The association with the Soviets is, however, disturbing to more traditionally minded Turkish nationalists, particularly those schooled in historic strategic considerations. Turkes will have to juggle these concerns with more pragmatic issues. How well he does that may determine whether his government survives or not.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 1976
ATTEMPTED COUP FAILS IN TURKEY
ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) – The Nationalist government of Prime Minister Alparslan Turkes has survived an apparent attempt by junior military officers during the morning of Tuesday, May 4 to remove it in a coup. Details are sparse as the government has clamped down, strictly censoring all news reports coming out of Turkey. The coup attempt came one day after the first anniversary of Prime Minister Turkes’ assumption of office.
A government spokesman did emphasize that Prime Minister Turkes and his Cabinet are “in good health and not in any physical way impeded from their government duties.”
Prime Minister Turkes appeared on national television during the supper hour on Tuesday and denounced all “recidivists and disloyal elements” in a lengthy (two hour) harangue which shed little light on what exactly had occurred earlier in the day.
According to sources close to the Turkish government, a number of subordinate commanders attempted to storm the Meclis (the parliament buildings) in Ankara and arrest Prime Minister Turkes and a number of his key ministers who were meeting inside. Shots were fired between the rebel group and soldiers who remained loyal to the government, as well as the government’s security forces, known as the Grey Wolves. The rebels were overwhelmed in a battle inside the building housing the Prime Minister’s office and Cabinet rooms, and most of them were killed. The remainder, some wounded, were taken for interrogation by the Grey Wolves. Turkish government sources have declined to identify how many there were, who they were or what their precise motivation might have been.
The fact that the rebels were apparently junior officers, supported by some of their troops, suggests that there is continuing unrest within the lower ranks of the armed forces against the ruling Nationalist Movement Party (NMP) which is currently the only legal political party in Turkey. Some junior officers are said to be dissatisfied with the Army leadership’s support of one party rule, along with the command of Turkish forces in the recent war with Greece. This adds to grievances and a sense of national humiliation over the outcome of the Cyprus crisis.
The military – and the army in particular – which has played a high political profile role in all Turkish governments since the Republic was declared in October 1923, has been purged twice in recent years. After the failed invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the previous regime purged the top officer ranks. After the NMP came to power on May 3, 1975, with military support, the top ranks were again purged of those who opposed NMP rule. As a consequence a number of mid-level officers, generally thought to support the NMP, were promoted into the senior ranks.
The junior officer ranks were mainly filled with conscripts from Turkey’s better universities, together with military academy cadets whose graduations were rushed in order to meet manpower requirements. Many of these conscripts and new officers were not politically vetted in the process, thus drawing members of opposition parties, now banned, into the armed services. Bitterness and resentment against the NMP and the previous government have also festered over a series of national humiliations in Cyprus and Greece. Tuesday’s action may have represented a bubbling-up of frustration among these junior officers. A further purge of the officer ranks is now to be expected.
Turkey was a semi-democracy until July 1974 when, after the failed invasion of Cyprus, then President Koruturk took direct authoritarian control of the government and State. Prime Minister Turkes, took power in May 1975 and arranged the ouster of President Koruturk, replacing him as President in July with General Omer Gruler, an NMP loyalists, who, as President, carries out mainly ceremonial duties. The NMP government restored some of the previous democratic forms, such as the office of Prime Minister, but banned all opposition parties. At the same time his regime gave the NMP party militia, the Grey Wolves, government power and has been converting them into a state security force which is beginning to parallel the military in power and capabilities within Turkey.
According to Prof Fahir Oladem, Professor Turkish Studies at the University of London, the rise of the Grey Wolves as a security and secret police force has created a great deal of resentment within society as a whole.
“Turkey has never been a true democracy, not in the western sense,” comments Prof. Oladem, “but this is a new degree of dictatorship that is becoming increasingly resented. Among the military in particular, this parallel power structure in the form of the Grey Wolves has become a direct threat to the Army’s central role in national affairs. All officers may find this disturbing, but the upper echelon have found a place in Turkes’ new order, and as such have been co-opted for now. It is the younger ones, especially the ambitious and idealistic among them, who would view the Grey Wolves as the greatest threat to their future. And we must not rule out those who see Turkes one-party rule as simply wrong, and want to restore a multi-party system for ideological reasons.”
“For the moment Turkes has found an outlet for people’s resentments through the war with the Greeks, and by renewing military operations against the Kurdish and Armenian separatists. All of these capture nationalist feeling and channel it outside. But the humiliation in Greece has been a set-back, which has re-focused attention on the failure of the military forces and the government.”
“Added to this is the fact that the economy situation, which is under international embargo, is getting desperate. Thus far Turkes has been able to unite the Turkish people against outsiders, blaming the western powers and ethnic separatists for national problems. The Soviets, Iranians and Iraqis are all reportedly assisting the government in by-passing UN sanctions, so Turkes has been able to deliver some goods despite the blockade. This prolongs his honeymoon with a core constituency of supporters, generally the lower middle class and small traders.
“But with the failure in Greece, and continuing shortages and inflation, he will not be able to play the foreign card forever. The Turkish people will begin to look at him and his government as the source of their problems. This coup attempt is most likely the first in what will become an increasing frequency of internal disturbances aimed at forcing Turkes from office, much as he used civil unrest and dissatisfaction to force Koruturk from office last year.”
The growing closeness of the Turkes regime with the Soviets has also raised eyebrows in a generally conservative nation which has long regarded the Soviet Union (and the Russian Empire that preceded it) as the nation’s primary strategic foe. Prime Minister Turkes had signed several trade and military supply deals with the Soviet government, as well the two nations have signed a non-aggression pact. When western powers entered Cyprus last fall, the Turkes government declared that it would review its membership in NATO. Despite Turkes’ controversial statement last summer that “NATO is dead”, Turkey currently remains a full member of NATO. According to a NATO spokesperson in Brussels, Turkey’s membership in the alliance is “under suspension, pending review.”
“The current side deals with the Soviet Union are inconsistent with the commitments of the North Atlantic charter,” the NATO spokesman added. All major American facilities, including Incirlik air base, have been closed. The United States has also suspended all weapons sales to Turkey.
The United States, French and British Ambassadors, together with many ambassadors from smaller NATO countries, have been recalled, and diplomatic relations are handled at a more junior level.
The Soviet Union has used the threat of a veto at the U.N. Security Council to soften sanctions against the Turkish regime. Turkey has also won support from the Non-Aligned Movement, although many of these nations remain divided over the nature of the Turkes regime.
“We understand the desire to forge an independent course, and we would not object to Soviet bi-lateral relations with Turkey, that is an affair between the nations,” said Algerian President Houari Boumediène, the Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement. “But a number of our members have some discomfort over the Soviet relation with what is outwardly a fascist state, at least in form. However, as has been pointed out, the Turkes government is seeking to uplift the ordinary working people of Turkey over the long established elites, which is a positive factor, of course. And it is not the policy of our movement to dictate the internal affairs of any nation.“
“In many Islamic countries the Turkish situation has been painted as a struggle between Islamic Turkey and the Christian crusaders from Greece and the west,” Prof. Oladem adds. “That conflict has been aggravated by events in Lebanon and especially by the western occupation of Syria. The West won some points by rescuing the Turkish, Islamic minority on Cyprus, but much of the Islamic world has adopted a wait and see attitude about how this will come out.”
“As such, it doesn’t matter so much what label we in the West put on the Turkes government, the fact that he is standing-up to the Christian world is the important factor. Dealing with the Soviet Union, despite its involvement in Syria and a recent anti-Islamic episode in Andijan, is commonly accepted as a strategic move, just as Nasser did. The association makes western communists, and some Arab socialists uncomfortable, of course, but this is not a priority in the wider Islamic community. Some Islamic regimes, particularly among the Arab states, are just as happy to see their more radical socialist opponents placed in this ideological discomfort.”
“The association with the Soviets is, however, disturbing to more traditionally minded Turkish nationalists, particularly those schooled in historic strategic considerations. Turkes will have to juggle these concerns with more pragmatic issues. How well he does that may determine whether his government survives or not.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April Showers bring May Primaries
April 30, 1976
Former Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), a candidate for the 1968 Democratic nomination who ran on an anti-war platform and is often credited with forcing President Lyndon B. Johnson out of the 1968 election, announces that he will run in the fall general election as an independent candidate on the “Peace and Bread” ticket, championing many of the same policies as George McGovern’s 1972 Independent Presidential candidacy.
May 1, 1976
Missouri Primary
Democrats (50 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 34%
Bayh - 25%
Dellums - 21%
Church - 12%
Jackson – 5%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (50 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 41%
Percy – 30%
Gavin – 19%
Williams – 9%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan was favoured to win in Missouri. The President’s personal scandal began to take a toll on his campaign numbers.
Texas Primary
Democrats (160 delegates; proportional):
Briscoe – 32%
Dellums – 25%
Bayh - 18%
Wallace - 15%
Church - 5%
Jackson – 4%
McCormack – 1%
Governor Dolph Briscoe (D-TX) entered the campaign as a favorite son candidate and managed to squeeze both Bayh and Wallace, which handed a larger share to Dellums. According to many polls, Wallace would have overtaken Bayh in the delegate count if Briscoe had not been in this delegate rich race.
Republicans (125 delegates; proportional):
Reagan – 36%
Connally – 32%
Percy – 13%
Gavin – 11%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan edged out John Connally in a race where John Connally tried to sweep Texas Republicans as a favourite son candidate. Between them they squeezed out the other candidates. The President’s campaign was still reeling from revelations about his past liaison with Martha Gellhorn while they were both married.
South Carolina Primary
Democrats (32 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 47%
Dellums – 26%
Bayh - 16%
Jackson – 9%
Church - 1%
McCormack – 1%
A Wallace win in his home turf, with much of the black anti-Wallace vote going to Dellums.
Republicans (42 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 46%
Percy – 32%
Gavin – 14%
Williams – 6%
Stassen – 2%
A predictable Reagan win in a conservative Southern state. The President’s campaign in increasing jeopardy.
Virginia Primary
Democrats (60 delegates; unit):
Wallace - 35%
Bayh – 32%
Dellums – 18%
Jackson – 10%
Church - 3%
McCormack – 2%
An important Wallace win in a state where the unit rule was still in place. This put George Wallace in the lead for the delegate count.
Republicans (51 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 36%
Gavin – 28%
Percy – 24%
Williams – 9%
Stassen – 3%
A crucial loss for the President in a State with heavy military vote. Reagan clearly pulling out ahead, and now the front runner.
May 3, 1976
EX-BROTHER-IN-LAW: GAVIN MARRIAGE CHARACTERIZED BY INFIDELITY; DISHONESTY
LITCHFIELD, Conn. (AP) – Peter Baulsir, brother of Irma Baulsir Gavin, the first wife of President James M. Gavin, who divorced the then-Major General Gavin in 1947, commented on the record that the President’s first marriage was “stormy” and that there were recurring problems caused by the President’s “infidelity and dishonesty.”
“My brother-in-law had a roving eye, and he couldn’t resist romancing other women on the side,” Baulsir, a retired investment bankerr, told the Manchester Union Leader in an exclusive interview. “Martha Gellhorn wasn’t the only one. By my reckoning there were at least a half dozen (other women) over the eighteen years they were married – at least that I knew of.”
“My sister suspected, maybe even she knew and didn’t want to admit it,” Baulsir added. “They fought about it quite a bit. It’s one of the reason she wrote him few letters when he was away during the War.”
“But what made it especially galling to me,” Baulsir said, “beside the fact that he wasn’t being a good husband and father, was that here was this hero, a two-star general who was this icon from the war, and he couldn’t practice basic honesty within his own family. I don’t doubt that he was a hero on the battlefield, but he wasn’t one at home. It broke my heart and, over the years, I think it crushed my sister too.”
James and Irma Gavin had one child, Barbara Gavin Fauntleroy, born in 1933. Both Mrs. Fauntleroy and her mother have declined repeated requests to comment on Baulsir’s statements.
“I’m speaking out now, because I see him running for President, and I can’t say, based on what I know, that he’s the right man for the job. Not with how he treated my sister and niece,” Baulsir said in response to questions about the timing of his comments. “In 1973, when that Agnew mess happened, that wasn’t the time to rock the boat. The nation needed a leader back then. But now that he’s running for an elected term against other qualified candidates, the whole truth needs to get out,” Baulsir added.
Questions have been raised about the fact that this interview was published in the Manchester Union Leader (based in Manchester, New Hampshire) whose publisher William Loeb makes no secret of his support for Governor Ronald Reagan’s campaign. Loeb has personally written at least eight editorials in support of Reagan’s candidacy since December of 1975.
Queried by The New York Times and other news outlets, Loeb’s spokesman stated that the Union Leader was “exercising its rights and responsibilities under the first amendment in publishing a relevant and newsworthy story about the President of the United States; a story which concerns his character and needs to be examined in light of his decision to seek another term in office.”
The Reagan campaign has sought to distance itself from the controversy.
“Governor Reagan does not comment on personal issues concerning other candidates,” Reagan campaign spokesman Michael Deaver told reporters, “nor does he have any wish to add to the personal discomfort of the President or his family. Governor Reagan strongly believes that the campaign should be solely about the issues facing our nation, and he intends to campaign on those, and to disregard any rumor or innuendo which has no place in responsible public discourse.”
Peter Baulsir is a member of the “Connecticut Republicans for Reagan Committee” and was designated as a Reagan delegate to the Republican National Convention for Litchfield County, Connecticut.
Connecticut Republican Party chairman Peter Rushton had no comment about Baulsir’s remarks. According to Rushton’s spokesman, Baulsir’s status as a potential delegate is “under review” and will be determined by “a full session of the (Connecticut Republican) Party Rules and Standards Committee.” No date was given for this meeting.
Presidential press spokesman Roger Mudd said that the President wouldn’t comment about “hurtful comments made by someone who should know better.”
Pressed by White House reporters, Press Secretary Mudd added, “that this is a personal matter, and the President regrets that Mr. Baulsir chose to go public with it. The President re-iterates that the questions pertaining to his first marriage, which ended twenty-nine years ago, are a private matter between himself and his former wife, and of no concern to anyone else.
“The President fully and forcefully condemns the editors and publisher of the Manchester Union Leader for publishing such yellow journalism. He believes that a respected publication like the Union Leader should know better than to sink to this level. It is disgraceful muck-raking posing as journalism, and apparently has been done in a wholly partisan cause. This is unfitting of the Union Leader’s and Mr. Loeb’s well-know reputation in the publishing industry for rectitude and honesty. The President is deeply disappointed in both as a result of this abuse of journalistic responsibility.”
Mudd was then asked if the President intended to pressure the Connecticut Republican Party to punish Peter Baulsir for his comments.
“Mr. Baulsir’s status as a delegate, or his punishment, is entirely an internal matter for the Connecticut State Republican Committee to resolve according to its rules and by-laws,” Mudd said. “The President will not attempt to interfere with the Connecticut Party’s internal administration or operations.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 1976
Oklahoma Primary
Democrats (36 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 58%
Bayh – 21 %
Church – 11%
Jackson – 7%
McCormack – 2%
Dellums – 1%
Wallace win.
Republicans (31 delegates; unit)
Connally – 32%
Reagan – 31%
Percy – 20%
Gavin – 9%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 1%
John Connally leveraged his campaign in neighboring Texas and his support in the oil community to edge out over Reagan and thus add to his delegate total.
Georgia Primary
Democrats (84 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 44%
Dellums – 27%
Bayh - 20%
Jackson – 6%
Church - 2%
McCormack – 1%
Another convincing Wallace win in a Southern state. Dellums came in second with the support of a powerful black Democratic Party wing.
Republicans (44 delegates; proportional):
Reagan – 48%
Gavin – 24%
Percy – 20%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 1%
Strong Reagan win. Support for the President in the Fort Benning area boosted his numbers despite a personal scandal.
Indiana Primary
Democrats (62 delegates; proportional)
Bayh - 45%
Wallace - 27%
Dellums – 21%
Jackson – 4%
McCormack – 2%
Church - 1%
Good Bayh showing in his home state.
Republicans (50 delegates; proportional):
Percy – 37%
Reagan – 36%
Gavin – 14%
Williams – 11%
Stassen – 2%
Percy win in a mid-western state. The President’s campaign is loosing strength.
Washington DC Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Tucker -37%
Dellums – 34%
Bayh – 25%
McCormack – 2%
Wallace – 2%
Jackson – 0%
Church – 0%
Acting Mayor Stanley Tucker beat out Dellums and Bayh running on the DC Statehood question.
Republicans (3 delegates; unit)
Percy – 51%
Gavin – 23 %
Reagan – 21%
Stassen – 3%
Williams – 2%
Percy auto-pilot win in an unimportant and largely ignored Republican primary.
Virgin Islands Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 47%
Dellums – 41%
Wallace – 9%
Jackson – 2%
McCormack – 0%
Church – 0%
A new experimental primary for 1976, Bayh took the establishment Democratic vote.
Republicans (2 delegates; unit)
Gavin 100%
Similar in idea to the Puerto Rico Primary (RNC controlled).
Minnesota Primary
Democrats (62 delegates; proportional)
Bayh - 41%
Wallace - 27%
Dellums – 23%
Church - 4%
Jackson – 3%
McCormack – 2%
Bayh did well in Hubert Humphrey’s home state in part because Sen. Humphrey campaigned for him to try and stop Wallace.
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional):
Percy – 39%
Reagan – 32%
Gavin – 20%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 2%
Connecticut Primary
Democrats (35 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 29%
Dellums – 23%
Wallace – 22%
Jackson – 17%
McCormack – 5%
Church – 4%
Bayh and Dellums split the liberal vote, while Wallace and Jackson split the conservative vote. Ellen McCormack also did well with her one issue anti-abortion campaign among Democrats in Connecticut.
Republicans (22 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 36%
Reagan – 34%
Gavin – 21%
Williams -7%
Stassen – 2%
New Mexico Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Jackson – 28%
Church – 24%
Bayh – 23%
Dellums – 13%
Wallace – 9 %
McCormack – 4%
A contest primarily between Henry Jackson and Frank Church, with Birch Bayh picking-up the liberal vote. Wallace did not mount a serious campaign in this state.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 61%
Percy – 17%
Williams -11%
Gavin – 10%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a conservative state.
May 6, 1976
Agnew On Point
Spiro Agnew: “Recently, the President’s personal life has been much talked about, specifically his romantic liaisons with women other than his wife, while he was married. The question has been asked whether this is a proper subject for political discussion. In other words, as the soft hearted would have it, are we abusing the first amendment by airing the personal dirty linen of our President?
“I say that if there has been any abuse, then James Gavin is the one who committed the abuse of our trust. This merits full discussion and action. The President lied to his wife and cheated on her, reportedly more than once. That’s adultery, and the last time I checked it is a mortal sin. The President is a Roman Catholic, so he will understand the distinction of a moral sin as opposed to a venial one. It not only violates the sixth commandment of God, but in that it is an act of lust and pride, adultery incorporates two of the seven deadly sins. Form every moral point of view it is wrong, and James Gavin has crossed the Almighty by his actions.
“But the Presidency is not a religious office, it is a Constitutional one. Therefore we must look at the question from a Constitutional basis. Look carefully at this, and you will see that the man lied to his wife and broke a sacred vow. If he did this repeatedly, in so intimate and close a relationship, would he do it again? Would he so easily violate his Constitutional oath and lie to the people? How can we know?
“The least this revelation merits is a full investigation of this President’s conduct, to determine if indeed this deception, this utter disregard of a holy oath taken before God, has been repeated with regard to his Constitutional oath while he has been in office. If not then okay, but if so, then we must next ask if this warrants impeachment. If James Gavin has violated his Constitutional oath with the ease he violated his marital oath – which he violated repeatedly - then he deserves to be impeached, and what is more should be impeached and removed from office as quickly as possible. Decency and the moral safety of our nation and its democratic institutions could demand no less.
“Certainly, this insight into James Gavin’s character argues for itself why the man should not be given another term in office. He, frankly, does not deserve it. He has shown us this by his own poor judgement and hurtful actions as a husband and a father. If a man cannot conduct his personal life in an upstanding manner, according to the vows of fidelity he swore before God, then how can he conduct the affairs of a nation with any degree of integrity and honor? We already know that an oath before God and his fellows means nothing to him.
“We have to recognize that James Gavin was not elected to the office of President; he was anointed to this post by a back door political fix which was designed to ease the conscience of those who decided to remove me from my elected office through dishonesty, misrepresentation and outright deceit. Had James Gavin stood before the electorate in 1972, as President Nixon and I did, then his failings would have been laid out sooner, and the people would have had a chance to judge, before he ever set foot in the Oval Office. The Democrats who conspired to appoint General Gavin as President neatly short-cut this, and we find this out only now, after Gavin has held the Presidential office for nearly three years as an unelected President.
“Beyond the President, who I doubt will be re-elected now, we must focus on those who anointed James Gavin as President through a back-door coronation. Did they know of his immoral behavior before the crowning, and did they ignore this fact? Did their desire to grab power away from the elected representative of the people blind them to this man’s faults? Or did the moral relativism of the liberal Democrats, who can excuse immorality in the pursuit of their political ends with an ease unthinkable to true men and women of faith and principle, overlook this man’s infidelities as a sign that he was hip and with the “in culture” of promiscuity and immorality? Was there some greater meaning in this choice of a crowned President, namely that he would symbolize the ascendancy of a new era of immortality and licensed vice with his appointment to the Presidency?
“These are questions which Carl Albert, John McFall and the other liberal Democrats, and their soft belly allies in the Republican Party, must answer and should be called to account for. What has occurred here is beyond the personal immortality of one man; it has the makings of a conspiracy to seize our very morality away from us, and through the seizure of the power of government, to take away our society’s age old and tested standards of God-inspired morality, and replace them with a new, Godless moral relativism based on bohemian and foreign values which can only undercut our very way of life.
“So, is the President’s private life fair game? When it is one and the same with the safeguarding of our national values – of our moral and God fearing society – and when that President arrived in office not by the will of the people but by the coronation of the few acting in back rooms and in secret – then yes, it is not only fair game, it is necessary that we probe deeper, to understand what has really happened here, and hold those who committed wrong accountable for their misdeeds.
“To William Loeb and the patriots at the Manchester Union Leader I can only say good work, and what took you so long?”
-------------------------------------------
May 8, 1976
FIRST LADY RESPONDS TO INFIDELITY ALLEGATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC, (AP) – First Lady Jean Gavin broke her silence to comment on recent charges of past marital infidelity which have been levelled against her husband, President Gavin. Mrs. Gavin was speaking at the annual symposium of the Boy and Girl Scouts of America and the Western Hemisphere Scouting Association in the nation’s capital.
“Recently, the press has run away with speculation about my husband’s private life from a time before I was married to him, and long before he was President,” Mrs. Gavin said. “This is, in my opinion, an example of poor citizenship on the part of those journalists responsible. They may well have had a scoop, and believed that the public had a right to know, but let’s look at the result. Our nation’s leader has been politically crippled at a dangerous time, our reputation, and by that I mean that of the United States, has been dragged down by this and what has it gained? What will come of this, except perhaps the ambitions of a handful of petty politicians seeking higher office will in some way advanced?
“But what do we as citizens gain from this example? We have lost the potential future service of a man who has dedicated himself and his Presidency to restoring the honor of this country after the last episode of scandal did it so much damage. Did this revelation enhance our national prestige or our security? Was there a gain to our community from this? What harm has been prevented by printing these stories? Did this story ease any suffering or bring any hope to those who need it?
“It is very well that the people who dragged-up this past to serve a narrow partisan interest wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but it is not enough to talk of their rights and the right to know. They have forgotten that with rights come responsibilities, and in this action they have demonstrated that they gave not one minute of thought to their responsibilities as citizens and so-called patriots.
“In life we have rights, but we also have responsibilities to our community, our fellow human beings and to our nation. Rights without responsibility are like a tantrum; freedom cannot exist without the responsible exercise of rights by all who enjoy them.
“I cannot say which, if any, of those seeking the office of President was behind this destructive action. But, if in the coming months, we do discover that some candidate or campaign operative brought this about in order to further the cause of one candidate, then we must question that candidate’s whole sense of responsibility and dedication to the values of our nation.”
Mrs. Gavin has refused to make further comment on the matter, apart from the speech quoted above. Her assistant routinely dismisses requests for an interview on the subject as “not meriting discussion.”
Jean Gavin has been a relatively reclusive First Lady, taking part in only a few public activities, such as the Scouting symposium. Mainly she has appeared at her husband’s side at public functions and otherwise kept to herself. Those close to the Gavin Administration have indicated that she is unhappy in the public role of First Lady. When James Gavin became President in November 1973, Mrs. Gavin had had little preparation for the role of First Lady.
There were rumors last year of a estrangement between the President and First Lady when President Gavin decided to seek another term in office. Mrs. Gavin was said to be opposed, and she spent two months away from Washington, at the family’s country house in Connecticut.
The latest revelations about the President’s private life are said to have reinforced Mrs. Gavin’s dislike of living in the White House.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 1976
Nebraska Primary
Democrats (24 delegates; proportional)
Church – 29%
Bayh -24%
Wallace - 22%
Dellums – 11%
Jackson – 10%
McCormack – 4%
Church makes a breakthrough in a central state closer to his home state.
Republicans (38 delegates; unit)
Percy – 41 %
Reagan – 40%
Gavin -12 %
Williams – 6%
Stassen – 1%
A close race between Percy and Reagan, with Percy winning by a single percent.
West Virginia Primary
Democrats (31 delegates; unit)
Byrd – 72 %
Wallace – 14%
Bayh - 9%
McCormack – 5%
Dellums – 0%
Jackson – 0%
Church - 0%
Sen. Robert Byrd has a strong win as a favourite son candidate in a state he has tight control over.
Republicans (23 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 56%
Percy - 17%
Williams – 14%
Gavin – 12%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a conservative state, reinforced by Jack Williams third place showing.
Alabama Primary
Democrats (38 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 81%
Bayh - 14%
McCormack – 3%
Dellums – 2%
Jackson – 0%
Church - 0%
Wallace favorite son finish in his home state.
Republicans (35 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 59%
Percy – 15%
Williams – 14%
Gavin – 12%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan win in a conservative state.
Utah Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 32%
Jackson – 22%
Church - 21%
Wallace – 16%
McCormack – 7%
Dellums – 2%
Bayh coalesces a strong liberal vote within the Utah Democratic Party. Wallace, Jackson and Church split the conservative and populist vote.
Republicans (23 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 54%
Williams – 17%
Percy – 16%
Gavin – 13%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan win in a conservative state. A surprisingly good showing by Jack Williams as “the real conservative – libertarian.”
Guam Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 100%
DNC controlled selection.
Republicans (2 delegates; unit):
James Gavin 100%
RNC controlled choice
President Gavin’s Press announcement – May 12, 1976
“After careful consideration, and with deep gratitude to those who have supported me and worked very hard on behalf of my candidacy, I have reluctantly decided that I must withdraw my candidacy from any further consideration for the Republican Party nomination for President in 1976. In the last few primary elections it has become clear that outside distractions have been impacting the effectiveness of my campaign. This has resulted in a situation which I believe is a detriment for both the Republican Party and the nation in general.
“Accordingly, I shall release those delegates already pledged to my support from any further commitment to me, though of course I cannot order them to act against the pledges which they have already made. I therefore leave that to the individual judgment of the delegates. I would ask each delegate to evaluate the remaining candidates and to reach their own conclusions as to how our party, and this nation, should proceed for the balance of the 1970’s.
“It is my belief that we must move forward with a balanced approach to our economic recovery and a policy of engagement with our allies and adversaries around the globe. To abandon moderation for theory based in ideology, and to reach back into the darkest days of the Cold War to seek the future of superpower relations, would be a fundamental failure of imagination on our part and a betrayal of the future.
“To move forward in the 1970’s it is my belief that we need in the Oval Office a President who is well versed in the worlds of business and international affairs, and who can bring to the Presidency a set of analytical skills and professional experience which will enhance our nation’s role not only as the leader of the free world, but as an innovator and partner in peace and prosperity. We cannot abandon the gains of detente because of some set-backs; the alternative is an endless confrontation which can only end in disaster.
“Likewise, our national economy needs a hand at the helm which can navigate the tides of change and remains open to innovation and steady dedication to growth. Someone versed in the world of commerce has this capability, where those steeped only in ideology, like the Wizard behind the curtain, offer-up untested ideas of potential success, for which they would use the American people and our future – and the future of our children – as laboratory rats. If they fail, the price is too high, and they have yet to produce a convincing formula for success. In the one state where this new ideology has taken hold, we have seen confrontation, bitterness, strife and a backward slide into chaos and economic stagnation. Let us not allow this to become a true statement of our whole nation.
“In the meantime, I remain as the President of the United States for these next eight months, and I shall continue to dedicate the best of my abilities and all my energies in the service of our great nation and its people for every minute of that time.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 18, 1976
Maryland Primary
Democrats (70 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 31%
Dellums – 24%
Bayh 23%
Jackson – 14%
Church – 5%
McCormack – 3%
Wallace wins a state he won in the 1972 Primaries, while Dellums does strongly in Baltimore and along the DC border. Bayh and Jackson split the upper middle class suburbs, while Bayh and Dellums both do well on University campuses.
Republicans (46 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 32%
Williams – 12%
Gavin – 7%
Stassen – 1%
Percy does well in a moderate state. With Gavin out (but still on the ballot) Reagan is beginning to feel the pinch from Williams as a spoiler.
Michigan Primary
Democrats (130 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 29%
Bayh 27%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 16%
Church – 7%
McCormack – 4%
Wallace wins a Northern industrial state which McKeithen won in the 1972 Primaries.
Republicans (75 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 46%
Reagan – 39%
Williams – 11%
Gavin – 2%
Stassen – 2%
Arizona Primary
Democrats (48 delegates; unit)
Bayh 29%
Wallace – 26%
Church - 25%
Jackson – 11%
Dellums – 7%
McCormack – 2%
Bayh wins with strong support from Morris Udall; Wallace and Church split the non-establishment liberal and populist vote.
Republicans (45 delegates; unit)
Williams – 34%
Percy – 32%
Reagan – 30%
Gavin – 3%
Stassen – 1%
Jack Williams edges out Reagan to win as a favourite son in his home state.
Delegate Counts at May 19:
Democrats:
George Wallace: 674.3
Birch Bayh: 566.5
Ronald Dellums: 277.7
Henry Jackson: 232.5
Dolph Briscoe: 80.0
Frank Church: 57.0
Reubin Askew: 52.0
Uncommitted: 33.0
Robert Byrd: 31.0
Stanley Tucker: 15.0
Rafael Colon: 5.0
Allocated: 2,024 (67.4%)
Required to win: 1,501
Total: 3,001
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan: 710.0
Charles Percy: 324.3
James Gavin: 273.9
John Connally: 89.8
Jack Williams: 45.0
Uncommitted: 30
Allocated: 1,473 (65.2%)
Required to win: 1,130
Total: 2,258
May 25, 1976
Arkansas Primary
Democrats (21 delegates; unit)
Wallace: 45%
Bayh: 26%
Jackson: 14%
Church 7%
Dellums: 5%
McCormack: 3%
Wallace win in a state he carried in the 1968 Presidential election.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Reagan: 52%
Percy: 33%
Williams: 14%
Stassen: 1%
Reagan win in the South.
Idaho Primary
Democrats (12 delegates; unit):
Church: 41%
Wallace: 24%
Jackson: 20%
Bayh: 14%
McCormack: 1%
Dellums: 0%
Sen. Frank Church carries his home state.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Williams – 37%
Percy – 35%
Reagan – 28%
Stassen – 0%
Williams, running a strongly Libertarian platform and endorsed by the Idaho Libertarian Party, outdoes Reagan on the conservative platform in a state with a strong Libertarian base.
American Samoa Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit):
Birch Bayh – 100%
Republicans (2 delegates; unit):
Charles Percy – 100%
Kentucky Primary
Democrats (46 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 33%
Bayh – 29%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 12%
Church – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (45 delegates; proportional)
Reagan – 53%
Percy – 38%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 1%
Nevada Primary
Democrats (25 delegates; proportional):
Church – 28%
Wallace – 26%
Bayh – 16%
Jackson – 15%
Dellums – 13%
McCormack – 2%
Republicans (25 delegates; unit)
Percy – 43%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 15%
Stassen – 1%
Another Reagan likely win hobbled by Williams, this time giving the state’s delegates to Percy.
North Dakota Primary
Democrats (12 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 41%
Church – 26%
Bayh – 17%
Jackson – 9%
Dellums –4%
McCormack – 3%
Wallace beats Church.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Williams – 34%
Percy - 33%
Reagan – 31%
Stassen – 2%
Another surprise upset of Williams over Reagan. Again, as in Idaho, Williams Libertarian-oriented conservatism attracted more support than Reagan’s conservatism.
Louisiana Primary
Democrats (59 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 41%
Dellums – 22%
Bayh – 16%
Jackson – 15%
Church –45%
McCormack – 2%
Wallace pulls out ahead in a state he carried in 1968 and with the assistance of the McKeithen political network in the state.
Republicans (45 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 52%
Percy – 31%
Williams – 17%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan victory in a Southern state.
Oregon Primary
Democrats (48 delegates; proportional)
Church – 31%
Wallace – 23%
Bayh – 20%
Jackson – 16%
Dellums – 8%
McCormack – 2%
Church victory in a Western state.
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 45%
Reagan – 44%
Williams – 10%
Stassen – 1%
Again, Williams hurts Reagan.
Tennessee Primary
Democrats (58 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 42%
Bayh – 24%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 10%
Church – 5%
McCormack – 2%
Strong Wallace showing in a border state.
Republicans (51 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 52%
Percy 43%
Williams 4%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a border state.
Maine Primary
Democrats (37 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 36%
Jackson – 26%
Wallace - 18%
Dellums – 11%
Church 7%
McCormack – 2%
Republicans (45 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 49%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 2%
May 26, 1976
WILLIAMS SUPRISE WINS IN NORTH DAKOTA AND IDAHO
BISMARCK, ND (AP) – Former Arizona Governor (John) “Jack” Richard Williams has racked-up two surprise Republican Party primary wins in North Dakota and Idaho. Williams, a hard right conservative, had been expected to run well behind former California Governor Ronald Reagan, the current leader of the GOP’s conservative movement, and moderate Illinois Senator Charles Percy. Williams upset the Reagan campaign’s assumptions yesterday with his dual wins.
Williams also beat Reagan in Arizona on May 18, but that victory has been attributed to the fact that Williams was the home state candidate in that contest.
Political observers have credited Williams’ wins with support from the powerful libertarian wing of the Republican Party in the two states, along with assistance from the officially chartered Libertarian parties in both States. Since the New Hampshire primaries in March, Governor Williams has been running in the Republican primaries as “the real conservative,” attacking the better known and funded conservative Reagan from the right on a variety of issues from national defense spending to budget cuts. Until the latest round of primaries he had been usually placing near the bottom, usually with less than 15% of the overall vote.
In both Idaho and North Dakota’s Republican Party Presidential primaries Williams received over one third of the vote of registered Republicans.
By forcefully advocating small government and the dismantling of many large government agencies – especially the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which is widely disliked by many western ranchers and land owners – Williams has tapped into a strong libertarian trend in these states.
“Reagan’s a conservative, so he says, but you have to look at his record as Governor of California,” comments John Calfous, the Libertarian Party candidate for North Dakota’s at-large Congressional seat and a co-chair of the North Dakota Libertarian Party, “and he’s done some positive things in that direction, but still, after eight years of Reagan , it takes a Goldwater in Sacramento to start actually dismantling that over-sized bureaucracy. Reagan did very little during his two terms to really downsize California’s government, he mostly trimmed at the edges and compromised with liberals. Compare that with what Governor Williams did in Arizona, the home of Barry Goldwater senior. He did it, and before that as Mayor of Phoenix he pursued a small government agenda. That’s what we need in Washington, and that’s why many North Dakotans supported him over Reagan.”
Calfous’ comments parallel Williams campaign theme, which has persistently questioned Ronald Reagan’s conservative credentials.
“Sure, Reagan was a Goldwater conservative when he campaigned for the Senator in 1964,” Williams told reporters in Fargo, North Dakota, “but then you have to look at what he did in Sacramento from 1967 to 1975, when he had real power. Even if he had to battle a liberal legislature – and I can understand what that’s like – he could have stood-up more for the principles he said he believed in 1964. Now, after he’s out of office, he’s back to Reagan’64. I don’t think his political record supports his rhetoric. Me, I’ll run on my record any day because in my four years as Mayor and eight as Governor I stood firm for my beliefs. I didn’t win every battle, but I didn’t let that sway me.”
“That’s the kind of thing we want to hear in North Dakota,” Calfous, who campaigned for Williams, says. “People here are tired of Washington’s big government dictating to them, and they are tired of Washington dithering while the economy goes to hell. We need real change, and Governor Williams is the guy who will do that.”
Exit polls in Idaho reflected a similar feeling among Republican voters there.
Across the northern Western States, but in particular in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, a strong turn toward Libertarian ideas has been noticed in recent state elections. The Libertarian Party currently has eight members in the North Dakota House of Representatives, and there are similar Libertarian delegations in the other States’ Legislatures as well.
“Small government and being left alone by Washington suits western tastes, and we want more of it,” Calfous said. “I intend to win in November and take that message to Washington on behalf of North Dakotans.”
Williams’ poll numbers are also strong in Alaska and Montana, where Republicans will vote in Presidential primaries on June 1. Williams is considered a threat to the Reagan campaign in both states.
Recently there had been discussions between the Reagan and Williams campaigns to the effect of having Williams drop-out of the race. After his wins in Idaho and North Dakota, and with his poll numbers rising in Alaska and Montana, talks have been suspended by the Williams camp. Williams currently has seventy-five committed delegates for the Republican National Convention, which will nominate the Republican candidate for President.
If Williams wins in Alaska and Montana, he will have one hundred delegates. This will not be enough to get the nomination, but depending upon the final outcome of the primaries, could give him a seat at the table if the Convention is forced to broker the nomination. That would occur if no candidate wins 1,130 committed delegates in the primaries, a situation which seems to be growing more likely as neither Governor Reagan nor Senator Percy seem to be sowing up the nomination.
President Gavin dropped out of the Republican primaries on May 11, but still has two hundred and seventy four committed delegates going into the convention. It is widely understood that he will release these to Senator Percy, who currently has four hundred and fifteen delegates, the next highest total after Reagan’s eight hundred and eighty eight delegates. Former Texas Governor and Treasury Secretary John Connally has eighty-nine delegates committed to him. Like Governor Williams, Governor Connally could play an important role in selecting a candidate if the delegate count is close.
The Republican National Convention will be held from August 16 – 19, 1976 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. The Republican National Committee, at the request of President Gavin, moved the convention to New York City in order to provide an economic boost to the city, which declared bankruptcy earlier this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31, 1976
WALLACE-OTHER CAMPAIGNS IN TALKS
MONTGOMERY, Alab. (AP) – Democratic Party Presidential front runner Governor George Wallace of Alabama is reportedly in talks with the campaigns of other Democratic Party contenders, in an effort to craft a united party before the Democratic National Convention in July. One aim of the effort is to avoid the chaos and division which characterized the 1968 and 1972 Democratic National Conventions, held in Chicago and Miami Beach respectively.
At the end of May Governor Wallace was the leading contender with eight hundred and nineteen committed delegates, with his closest rival, Indiana Senator Birch Bayh having six hundred and thirty three committed delegates. Even combined they do not have enough to secure the Democratic Party nomination, although that could change with the forthcoming Primary elections on June 1 and June 8.
One of these is the powerhouse California primary on June 8 with 255 delegates at stake. In a poll taken on May 29th, Senator Bayh has a four point lead in polls over Governor Wallace in that State. In 1972 California awarded its delegates on the unit rule, which caused considerable controversy at that year’s convention. In 1976 California will award its delegates according to a proportional formula in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.
According to sources close to the negotiations, a stumbling block to a Wallace-Bayh agreement – which could possibly lead to a party ticket – is the question of which one will be the Presidential nominee and which will be the Vice Presidential nominee. Senator Bayh had the second spot in 1972, and nearly won with Governor John McKeithen of Louisiana as the Presidential nominee. Senator Bayh is, according to inside sources, very unwilling to take the second spot on the ticket again, and believes that he has earned the Presidential nomination. Governor Wallace and his supporters disagree.
“Governor Wallace isn’t interested in being Vice President,” says Wallace aide Charles Snider. “He’s in this thing to win it, and he will.”
Recent visitors to the Alabama Governor’s Mansion in Montgomery have included a who’s-who of Democratic Party officials, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and former DNC Chairman Lawrence O’Brien. New York Governor Hugh Carey, former Defense Secretary and long-time Washington insider Clark Clifford and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) have also paid calls on Governor Wallace. The substance of their talks have remained a closely guarded secret, but it is believed that the various VIP visitors to Montgomery have come as emissaries of Wallace’s various competitors, each sounding out Wallace on a potential deal which could seal the nomination before the convention.
The recent visit of Andrew Young and John Lewis of Georgia has raised some eyebrows as both are regarded as emissaries of the Dellums campaign. Representative Ronald Dellums of California has been running an economically populist campaign not dissimilar in some respects to Governor Wallace’s own campaign, except that Dellums has generally been to the left of Wallace on a number of major issues. Dellums currently is in third place behind Wallace and Bayh with three hundred and fifteen committed delegates.
If Governor Wallace secures the Democratic Party nomination, he will need to consider a running mate who can balance his largely blue collar and Southern appeal. He will also need to balance his ticket with someone who has foreign policy and national political experience, or at least compliments Wallace in those areas. Wallace has only held elective office in Alabama and has never served in Washington. His foreign policy experience is practically non-existent.
In addition, Governor Wallace must shake-off his past association with the policy of segregation. In January 1963, during his first inauguration as Alabama Governor, Wallace famously declared “Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever.” Those words have haunted his national political career since. He seemed to repudiate those words and what they stood for during an emotional speech to a black congregation at a church in Newark, New Jersey at the beginning of April. Many observers have been sceptical of Wallace’s politically convenient atonement. It is noteworthy though, that as Governor of Alabama since 1971, Governor Wallace has appointed a record number of black officials and judges in this Deep South State where the traditions of Jim Crow still hold strong in custom, if no longer in law.
Ironically, in light of his 1963 remarks, George Wallace has played a part in the slow removal of many Jim Crow laws in his home state. Many of the repeals were begun by his predecessor Albert Brewer, Governor from 1968 – 1971. Upon reclaiming the office in 1971, Wallace defied the expectation of many observers by not reversing Brewer’s changes, and in some cases extending them.
In his 1976 campaign Governor Wallace has focused on cutting wasteful and self-serving Washington spending and on reliving the economic plight of working Americans who have felt the brunt of the current recession. He has said that his message, like poverty and suffering themselves, transcends race, and has even referred to the gulf between haves and have-nots in America as the “real segregation” that needs to be defeated. Ronald Dellums has used similar language in his speeches.
Wallace was shot by Arthur Bremer and permanently paralyzed during the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries. His confinement to a wheelchair has become an issue during the 1976 campaign, most famously when former President Spiro Agnew cast doubt on his ability to function during an interview on Agnew’s television program. Wallace reacted angrily to Agnew’s taunt, explaining that his condition has allowed him to understand suffering first hand, and that this enables him to better understand the suffering of the American people in the present economy.
If Wallace wins the nomination he will be the second Democratic Party nominee for President from the Deep South in a row.
The Democratic National Convention will be held from July 12 – 15 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. New York City was chosen as the site for the convention in part of infuse money into the New York area. The city was forced to declare bankruptcy earlier this year and is currently administered directly by the New York State government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate Counts at May 26:
Democrats:
George Wallace: 819.3
Birch Bayh: 633.7
Ronald Dellums: 314.7
Henry Jackson: 255.8
Frank Church: 105.5
Dolph Briscoe: 80.0
Reubin Askew: 52.0
Uncommitted: 33.0
Robert Byrd: 31.0
Stanley Tucker: 15.0
Rafael Colon: 5.0
Allocated: 2,345 (78.1%)
Required to win: 1,501
Total: 3,001
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan: 887.5
Charles Percy: 414.8
James Gavin: 273.9
John Connally: 89.8
Jack Williams: 75.0
Uncommitted: 30
Allocated: 1,771 (78.4%)
Required to win: 1,130
Total: 2,258
April 30, 1976
Former Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), a candidate for the 1968 Democratic nomination who ran on an anti-war platform and is often credited with forcing President Lyndon B. Johnson out of the 1968 election, announces that he will run in the fall general election as an independent candidate on the “Peace and Bread” ticket, championing many of the same policies as George McGovern’s 1972 Independent Presidential candidacy.
May 1, 1976
Missouri Primary
Democrats (50 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 34%
Bayh - 25%
Dellums - 21%
Church - 12%
Jackson – 5%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (50 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 41%
Percy – 30%
Gavin – 19%
Williams – 9%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan was favoured to win in Missouri. The President’s personal scandal began to take a toll on his campaign numbers.
Texas Primary
Democrats (160 delegates; proportional):
Briscoe – 32%
Dellums – 25%
Bayh - 18%
Wallace - 15%
Church - 5%
Jackson – 4%
McCormack – 1%
Governor Dolph Briscoe (D-TX) entered the campaign as a favorite son candidate and managed to squeeze both Bayh and Wallace, which handed a larger share to Dellums. According to many polls, Wallace would have overtaken Bayh in the delegate count if Briscoe had not been in this delegate rich race.
Republicans (125 delegates; proportional):
Reagan – 36%
Connally – 32%
Percy – 13%
Gavin – 11%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan edged out John Connally in a race where John Connally tried to sweep Texas Republicans as a favourite son candidate. Between them they squeezed out the other candidates. The President’s campaign was still reeling from revelations about his past liaison with Martha Gellhorn while they were both married.
South Carolina Primary
Democrats (32 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 47%
Dellums – 26%
Bayh - 16%
Jackson – 9%
Church - 1%
McCormack – 1%
A Wallace win in his home turf, with much of the black anti-Wallace vote going to Dellums.
Republicans (42 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 46%
Percy – 32%
Gavin – 14%
Williams – 6%
Stassen – 2%
A predictable Reagan win in a conservative Southern state. The President’s campaign in increasing jeopardy.
Virginia Primary
Democrats (60 delegates; unit):
Wallace - 35%
Bayh – 32%
Dellums – 18%
Jackson – 10%
Church - 3%
McCormack – 2%
An important Wallace win in a state where the unit rule was still in place. This put George Wallace in the lead for the delegate count.
Republicans (51 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 36%
Gavin – 28%
Percy – 24%
Williams – 9%
Stassen – 3%
A crucial loss for the President in a State with heavy military vote. Reagan clearly pulling out ahead, and now the front runner.
May 3, 1976
EX-BROTHER-IN-LAW: GAVIN MARRIAGE CHARACTERIZED BY INFIDELITY; DISHONESTY
LITCHFIELD, Conn. (AP) – Peter Baulsir, brother of Irma Baulsir Gavin, the first wife of President James M. Gavin, who divorced the then-Major General Gavin in 1947, commented on the record that the President’s first marriage was “stormy” and that there were recurring problems caused by the President’s “infidelity and dishonesty.”
“My brother-in-law had a roving eye, and he couldn’t resist romancing other women on the side,” Baulsir, a retired investment bankerr, told the Manchester Union Leader in an exclusive interview. “Martha Gellhorn wasn’t the only one. By my reckoning there were at least a half dozen (other women) over the eighteen years they were married – at least that I knew of.”
“My sister suspected, maybe even she knew and didn’t want to admit it,” Baulsir added. “They fought about it quite a bit. It’s one of the reason she wrote him few letters when he was away during the War.”
“But what made it especially galling to me,” Baulsir said, “beside the fact that he wasn’t being a good husband and father, was that here was this hero, a two-star general who was this icon from the war, and he couldn’t practice basic honesty within his own family. I don’t doubt that he was a hero on the battlefield, but he wasn’t one at home. It broke my heart and, over the years, I think it crushed my sister too.”
James and Irma Gavin had one child, Barbara Gavin Fauntleroy, born in 1933. Both Mrs. Fauntleroy and her mother have declined repeated requests to comment on Baulsir’s statements.
“I’m speaking out now, because I see him running for President, and I can’t say, based on what I know, that he’s the right man for the job. Not with how he treated my sister and niece,” Baulsir said in response to questions about the timing of his comments. “In 1973, when that Agnew mess happened, that wasn’t the time to rock the boat. The nation needed a leader back then. But now that he’s running for an elected term against other qualified candidates, the whole truth needs to get out,” Baulsir added.
Questions have been raised about the fact that this interview was published in the Manchester Union Leader (based in Manchester, New Hampshire) whose publisher William Loeb makes no secret of his support for Governor Ronald Reagan’s campaign. Loeb has personally written at least eight editorials in support of Reagan’s candidacy since December of 1975.
Queried by The New York Times and other news outlets, Loeb’s spokesman stated that the Union Leader was “exercising its rights and responsibilities under the first amendment in publishing a relevant and newsworthy story about the President of the United States; a story which concerns his character and needs to be examined in light of his decision to seek another term in office.”
The Reagan campaign has sought to distance itself from the controversy.
“Governor Reagan does not comment on personal issues concerning other candidates,” Reagan campaign spokesman Michael Deaver told reporters, “nor does he have any wish to add to the personal discomfort of the President or his family. Governor Reagan strongly believes that the campaign should be solely about the issues facing our nation, and he intends to campaign on those, and to disregard any rumor or innuendo which has no place in responsible public discourse.”
Peter Baulsir is a member of the “Connecticut Republicans for Reagan Committee” and was designated as a Reagan delegate to the Republican National Convention for Litchfield County, Connecticut.
Connecticut Republican Party chairman Peter Rushton had no comment about Baulsir’s remarks. According to Rushton’s spokesman, Baulsir’s status as a potential delegate is “under review” and will be determined by “a full session of the (Connecticut Republican) Party Rules and Standards Committee.” No date was given for this meeting.
Presidential press spokesman Roger Mudd said that the President wouldn’t comment about “hurtful comments made by someone who should know better.”
Pressed by White House reporters, Press Secretary Mudd added, “that this is a personal matter, and the President regrets that Mr. Baulsir chose to go public with it. The President re-iterates that the questions pertaining to his first marriage, which ended twenty-nine years ago, are a private matter between himself and his former wife, and of no concern to anyone else.
“The President fully and forcefully condemns the editors and publisher of the Manchester Union Leader for publishing such yellow journalism. He believes that a respected publication like the Union Leader should know better than to sink to this level. It is disgraceful muck-raking posing as journalism, and apparently has been done in a wholly partisan cause. This is unfitting of the Union Leader’s and Mr. Loeb’s well-know reputation in the publishing industry for rectitude and honesty. The President is deeply disappointed in both as a result of this abuse of journalistic responsibility.”
Mudd was then asked if the President intended to pressure the Connecticut Republican Party to punish Peter Baulsir for his comments.
“Mr. Baulsir’s status as a delegate, or his punishment, is entirely an internal matter for the Connecticut State Republican Committee to resolve according to its rules and by-laws,” Mudd said. “The President will not attempt to interfere with the Connecticut Party’s internal administration or operations.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 1976
Oklahoma Primary
Democrats (36 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 58%
Bayh – 21 %
Church – 11%
Jackson – 7%
McCormack – 2%
Dellums – 1%
Wallace win.
Republicans (31 delegates; unit)
Connally – 32%
Reagan – 31%
Percy – 20%
Gavin – 9%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 1%
John Connally leveraged his campaign in neighboring Texas and his support in the oil community to edge out over Reagan and thus add to his delegate total.
Georgia Primary
Democrats (84 delegates; proportional):
Wallace - 44%
Dellums – 27%
Bayh - 20%
Jackson – 6%
Church - 2%
McCormack – 1%
Another convincing Wallace win in a Southern state. Dellums came in second with the support of a powerful black Democratic Party wing.
Republicans (44 delegates; proportional):
Reagan – 48%
Gavin – 24%
Percy – 20%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 1%
Strong Reagan win. Support for the President in the Fort Benning area boosted his numbers despite a personal scandal.
Indiana Primary
Democrats (62 delegates; proportional)
Bayh - 45%
Wallace - 27%
Dellums – 21%
Jackson – 4%
McCormack – 2%
Church - 1%
Good Bayh showing in his home state.
Republicans (50 delegates; proportional):
Percy – 37%
Reagan – 36%
Gavin – 14%
Williams – 11%
Stassen – 2%
Percy win in a mid-western state. The President’s campaign is loosing strength.
Washington DC Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Tucker -37%
Dellums – 34%
Bayh – 25%
McCormack – 2%
Wallace – 2%
Jackson – 0%
Church – 0%
Acting Mayor Stanley Tucker beat out Dellums and Bayh running on the DC Statehood question.
Republicans (3 delegates; unit)
Percy – 51%
Gavin – 23 %
Reagan – 21%
Stassen – 3%
Williams – 2%
Percy auto-pilot win in an unimportant and largely ignored Republican primary.
Virgin Islands Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 47%
Dellums – 41%
Wallace – 9%
Jackson – 2%
McCormack – 0%
Church – 0%
A new experimental primary for 1976, Bayh took the establishment Democratic vote.
Republicans (2 delegates; unit)
Gavin 100%
Similar in idea to the Puerto Rico Primary (RNC controlled).
Minnesota Primary
Democrats (62 delegates; proportional)
Bayh - 41%
Wallace - 27%
Dellums – 23%
Church - 4%
Jackson – 3%
McCormack – 2%
Bayh did well in Hubert Humphrey’s home state in part because Sen. Humphrey campaigned for him to try and stop Wallace.
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional):
Percy – 39%
Reagan – 32%
Gavin – 20%
Williams – 7%
Stassen – 2%
Connecticut Primary
Democrats (35 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 29%
Dellums – 23%
Wallace – 22%
Jackson – 17%
McCormack – 5%
Church – 4%
Bayh and Dellums split the liberal vote, while Wallace and Jackson split the conservative vote. Ellen McCormack also did well with her one issue anti-abortion campaign among Democrats in Connecticut.
Republicans (22 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 36%
Reagan – 34%
Gavin – 21%
Williams -7%
Stassen – 2%
New Mexico Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Jackson – 28%
Church – 24%
Bayh – 23%
Dellums – 13%
Wallace – 9 %
McCormack – 4%
A contest primarily between Henry Jackson and Frank Church, with Birch Bayh picking-up the liberal vote. Wallace did not mount a serious campaign in this state.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 61%
Percy – 17%
Williams -11%
Gavin – 10%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a conservative state.
May 6, 1976
Agnew On Point
Spiro Agnew: “Recently, the President’s personal life has been much talked about, specifically his romantic liaisons with women other than his wife, while he was married. The question has been asked whether this is a proper subject for political discussion. In other words, as the soft hearted would have it, are we abusing the first amendment by airing the personal dirty linen of our President?
“I say that if there has been any abuse, then James Gavin is the one who committed the abuse of our trust. This merits full discussion and action. The President lied to his wife and cheated on her, reportedly more than once. That’s adultery, and the last time I checked it is a mortal sin. The President is a Roman Catholic, so he will understand the distinction of a moral sin as opposed to a venial one. It not only violates the sixth commandment of God, but in that it is an act of lust and pride, adultery incorporates two of the seven deadly sins. Form every moral point of view it is wrong, and James Gavin has crossed the Almighty by his actions.
“But the Presidency is not a religious office, it is a Constitutional one. Therefore we must look at the question from a Constitutional basis. Look carefully at this, and you will see that the man lied to his wife and broke a sacred vow. If he did this repeatedly, in so intimate and close a relationship, would he do it again? Would he so easily violate his Constitutional oath and lie to the people? How can we know?
“The least this revelation merits is a full investigation of this President’s conduct, to determine if indeed this deception, this utter disregard of a holy oath taken before God, has been repeated with regard to his Constitutional oath while he has been in office. If not then okay, but if so, then we must next ask if this warrants impeachment. If James Gavin has violated his Constitutional oath with the ease he violated his marital oath – which he violated repeatedly - then he deserves to be impeached, and what is more should be impeached and removed from office as quickly as possible. Decency and the moral safety of our nation and its democratic institutions could demand no less.
“Certainly, this insight into James Gavin’s character argues for itself why the man should not be given another term in office. He, frankly, does not deserve it. He has shown us this by his own poor judgement and hurtful actions as a husband and a father. If a man cannot conduct his personal life in an upstanding manner, according to the vows of fidelity he swore before God, then how can he conduct the affairs of a nation with any degree of integrity and honor? We already know that an oath before God and his fellows means nothing to him.
“We have to recognize that James Gavin was not elected to the office of President; he was anointed to this post by a back door political fix which was designed to ease the conscience of those who decided to remove me from my elected office through dishonesty, misrepresentation and outright deceit. Had James Gavin stood before the electorate in 1972, as President Nixon and I did, then his failings would have been laid out sooner, and the people would have had a chance to judge, before he ever set foot in the Oval Office. The Democrats who conspired to appoint General Gavin as President neatly short-cut this, and we find this out only now, after Gavin has held the Presidential office for nearly three years as an unelected President.
“Beyond the President, who I doubt will be re-elected now, we must focus on those who anointed James Gavin as President through a back-door coronation. Did they know of his immoral behavior before the crowning, and did they ignore this fact? Did their desire to grab power away from the elected representative of the people blind them to this man’s faults? Or did the moral relativism of the liberal Democrats, who can excuse immorality in the pursuit of their political ends with an ease unthinkable to true men and women of faith and principle, overlook this man’s infidelities as a sign that he was hip and with the “in culture” of promiscuity and immorality? Was there some greater meaning in this choice of a crowned President, namely that he would symbolize the ascendancy of a new era of immortality and licensed vice with his appointment to the Presidency?
“These are questions which Carl Albert, John McFall and the other liberal Democrats, and their soft belly allies in the Republican Party, must answer and should be called to account for. What has occurred here is beyond the personal immortality of one man; it has the makings of a conspiracy to seize our very morality away from us, and through the seizure of the power of government, to take away our society’s age old and tested standards of God-inspired morality, and replace them with a new, Godless moral relativism based on bohemian and foreign values which can only undercut our very way of life.
“So, is the President’s private life fair game? When it is one and the same with the safeguarding of our national values – of our moral and God fearing society – and when that President arrived in office not by the will of the people but by the coronation of the few acting in back rooms and in secret – then yes, it is not only fair game, it is necessary that we probe deeper, to understand what has really happened here, and hold those who committed wrong accountable for their misdeeds.
“To William Loeb and the patriots at the Manchester Union Leader I can only say good work, and what took you so long?”
-------------------------------------------
May 8, 1976
FIRST LADY RESPONDS TO INFIDELITY ALLEGATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC, (AP) – First Lady Jean Gavin broke her silence to comment on recent charges of past marital infidelity which have been levelled against her husband, President Gavin. Mrs. Gavin was speaking at the annual symposium of the Boy and Girl Scouts of America and the Western Hemisphere Scouting Association in the nation’s capital.
“Recently, the press has run away with speculation about my husband’s private life from a time before I was married to him, and long before he was President,” Mrs. Gavin said. “This is, in my opinion, an example of poor citizenship on the part of those journalists responsible. They may well have had a scoop, and believed that the public had a right to know, but let’s look at the result. Our nation’s leader has been politically crippled at a dangerous time, our reputation, and by that I mean that of the United States, has been dragged down by this and what has it gained? What will come of this, except perhaps the ambitions of a handful of petty politicians seeking higher office will in some way advanced?
“But what do we as citizens gain from this example? We have lost the potential future service of a man who has dedicated himself and his Presidency to restoring the honor of this country after the last episode of scandal did it so much damage. Did this revelation enhance our national prestige or our security? Was there a gain to our community from this? What harm has been prevented by printing these stories? Did this story ease any suffering or bring any hope to those who need it?
“It is very well that the people who dragged-up this past to serve a narrow partisan interest wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but it is not enough to talk of their rights and the right to know. They have forgotten that with rights come responsibilities, and in this action they have demonstrated that they gave not one minute of thought to their responsibilities as citizens and so-called patriots.
“In life we have rights, but we also have responsibilities to our community, our fellow human beings and to our nation. Rights without responsibility are like a tantrum; freedom cannot exist without the responsible exercise of rights by all who enjoy them.
“I cannot say which, if any, of those seeking the office of President was behind this destructive action. But, if in the coming months, we do discover that some candidate or campaign operative brought this about in order to further the cause of one candidate, then we must question that candidate’s whole sense of responsibility and dedication to the values of our nation.”
Mrs. Gavin has refused to make further comment on the matter, apart from the speech quoted above. Her assistant routinely dismisses requests for an interview on the subject as “not meriting discussion.”
Jean Gavin has been a relatively reclusive First Lady, taking part in only a few public activities, such as the Scouting symposium. Mainly she has appeared at her husband’s side at public functions and otherwise kept to herself. Those close to the Gavin Administration have indicated that she is unhappy in the public role of First Lady. When James Gavin became President in November 1973, Mrs. Gavin had had little preparation for the role of First Lady.
There were rumors last year of a estrangement between the President and First Lady when President Gavin decided to seek another term in office. Mrs. Gavin was said to be opposed, and she spent two months away from Washington, at the family’s country house in Connecticut.
The latest revelations about the President’s private life are said to have reinforced Mrs. Gavin’s dislike of living in the White House.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 1976
Nebraska Primary
Democrats (24 delegates; proportional)
Church – 29%
Bayh -24%
Wallace - 22%
Dellums – 11%
Jackson – 10%
McCormack – 4%
Church makes a breakthrough in a central state closer to his home state.
Republicans (38 delegates; unit)
Percy – 41 %
Reagan – 40%
Gavin -12 %
Williams – 6%
Stassen – 1%
A close race between Percy and Reagan, with Percy winning by a single percent.
West Virginia Primary
Democrats (31 delegates; unit)
Byrd – 72 %
Wallace – 14%
Bayh - 9%
McCormack – 5%
Dellums – 0%
Jackson – 0%
Church - 0%
Sen. Robert Byrd has a strong win as a favourite son candidate in a state he has tight control over.
Republicans (23 delegates; unit):
Reagan – 56%
Percy - 17%
Williams – 14%
Gavin – 12%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a conservative state, reinforced by Jack Williams third place showing.
Alabama Primary
Democrats (38 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 81%
Bayh - 14%
McCormack – 3%
Dellums – 2%
Jackson – 0%
Church - 0%
Wallace favorite son finish in his home state.
Republicans (35 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 59%
Percy – 15%
Williams – 14%
Gavin – 12%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan win in a conservative state.
Utah Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 32%
Jackson – 22%
Church - 21%
Wallace – 16%
McCormack – 7%
Dellums – 2%
Bayh coalesces a strong liberal vote within the Utah Democratic Party. Wallace, Jackson and Church split the conservative and populist vote.
Republicans (23 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 54%
Williams – 17%
Percy – 16%
Gavin – 13%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan win in a conservative state. A surprisingly good showing by Jack Williams as “the real conservative – libertarian.”
Guam Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 100%
DNC controlled selection.
Republicans (2 delegates; unit):
James Gavin 100%
RNC controlled choice
President Gavin’s Press announcement – May 12, 1976
“After careful consideration, and with deep gratitude to those who have supported me and worked very hard on behalf of my candidacy, I have reluctantly decided that I must withdraw my candidacy from any further consideration for the Republican Party nomination for President in 1976. In the last few primary elections it has become clear that outside distractions have been impacting the effectiveness of my campaign. This has resulted in a situation which I believe is a detriment for both the Republican Party and the nation in general.
“Accordingly, I shall release those delegates already pledged to my support from any further commitment to me, though of course I cannot order them to act against the pledges which they have already made. I therefore leave that to the individual judgment of the delegates. I would ask each delegate to evaluate the remaining candidates and to reach their own conclusions as to how our party, and this nation, should proceed for the balance of the 1970’s.
“It is my belief that we must move forward with a balanced approach to our economic recovery and a policy of engagement with our allies and adversaries around the globe. To abandon moderation for theory based in ideology, and to reach back into the darkest days of the Cold War to seek the future of superpower relations, would be a fundamental failure of imagination on our part and a betrayal of the future.
“To move forward in the 1970’s it is my belief that we need in the Oval Office a President who is well versed in the worlds of business and international affairs, and who can bring to the Presidency a set of analytical skills and professional experience which will enhance our nation’s role not only as the leader of the free world, but as an innovator and partner in peace and prosperity. We cannot abandon the gains of detente because of some set-backs; the alternative is an endless confrontation which can only end in disaster.
“Likewise, our national economy needs a hand at the helm which can navigate the tides of change and remains open to innovation and steady dedication to growth. Someone versed in the world of commerce has this capability, where those steeped only in ideology, like the Wizard behind the curtain, offer-up untested ideas of potential success, for which they would use the American people and our future – and the future of our children – as laboratory rats. If they fail, the price is too high, and they have yet to produce a convincing formula for success. In the one state where this new ideology has taken hold, we have seen confrontation, bitterness, strife and a backward slide into chaos and economic stagnation. Let us not allow this to become a true statement of our whole nation.
“In the meantime, I remain as the President of the United States for these next eight months, and I shall continue to dedicate the best of my abilities and all my energies in the service of our great nation and its people for every minute of that time.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 18, 1976
Maryland Primary
Democrats (70 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 31%
Dellums – 24%
Bayh 23%
Jackson – 14%
Church – 5%
McCormack – 3%
Wallace wins a state he won in the 1972 Primaries, while Dellums does strongly in Baltimore and along the DC border. Bayh and Jackson split the upper middle class suburbs, while Bayh and Dellums both do well on University campuses.
Republicans (46 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 32%
Williams – 12%
Gavin – 7%
Stassen – 1%
Percy does well in a moderate state. With Gavin out (but still on the ballot) Reagan is beginning to feel the pinch from Williams as a spoiler.
Michigan Primary
Democrats (130 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 29%
Bayh 27%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 16%
Church – 7%
McCormack – 4%
Wallace wins a Northern industrial state which McKeithen won in the 1972 Primaries.
Republicans (75 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 46%
Reagan – 39%
Williams – 11%
Gavin – 2%
Stassen – 2%
Arizona Primary
Democrats (48 delegates; unit)
Bayh 29%
Wallace – 26%
Church - 25%
Jackson – 11%
Dellums – 7%
McCormack – 2%
Bayh wins with strong support from Morris Udall; Wallace and Church split the non-establishment liberal and populist vote.
Republicans (45 delegates; unit)
Williams – 34%
Percy – 32%
Reagan – 30%
Gavin – 3%
Stassen – 1%
Jack Williams edges out Reagan to win as a favourite son in his home state.
Delegate Counts at May 19:
Democrats:
George Wallace: 674.3
Birch Bayh: 566.5
Ronald Dellums: 277.7
Henry Jackson: 232.5
Dolph Briscoe: 80.0
Frank Church: 57.0
Reubin Askew: 52.0
Uncommitted: 33.0
Robert Byrd: 31.0
Stanley Tucker: 15.0
Rafael Colon: 5.0
Allocated: 2,024 (67.4%)
Required to win: 1,501
Total: 3,001
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan: 710.0
Charles Percy: 324.3
James Gavin: 273.9
John Connally: 89.8
Jack Williams: 45.0
Uncommitted: 30
Allocated: 1,473 (65.2%)
Required to win: 1,130
Total: 2,258
May 25, 1976
Arkansas Primary
Democrats (21 delegates; unit)
Wallace: 45%
Bayh: 26%
Jackson: 14%
Church 7%
Dellums: 5%
McCormack: 3%
Wallace win in a state he carried in the 1968 Presidential election.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Reagan: 52%
Percy: 33%
Williams: 14%
Stassen: 1%
Reagan win in the South.
Idaho Primary
Democrats (12 delegates; unit):
Church: 41%
Wallace: 24%
Jackson: 20%
Bayh: 14%
McCormack: 1%
Dellums: 0%
Sen. Frank Church carries his home state.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Williams – 37%
Percy – 35%
Reagan – 28%
Stassen – 0%
Williams, running a strongly Libertarian platform and endorsed by the Idaho Libertarian Party, outdoes Reagan on the conservative platform in a state with a strong Libertarian base.
American Samoa Primary
Democrats (3 delegates; unit):
Birch Bayh – 100%
Republicans (2 delegates; unit):
Charles Percy – 100%
Kentucky Primary
Democrats (46 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 33%
Bayh – 29%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 12%
Church – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (45 delegates; proportional)
Reagan – 53%
Percy – 38%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 1%
Nevada Primary
Democrats (25 delegates; proportional):
Church – 28%
Wallace – 26%
Bayh – 16%
Jackson – 15%
Dellums – 13%
McCormack – 2%
Republicans (25 delegates; unit)
Percy – 43%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 15%
Stassen – 1%
Another Reagan likely win hobbled by Williams, this time giving the state’s delegates to Percy.
North Dakota Primary
Democrats (12 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 41%
Church – 26%
Bayh – 17%
Jackson – 9%
Dellums –4%
McCormack – 3%
Wallace beats Church.
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Williams – 34%
Percy - 33%
Reagan – 31%
Stassen – 2%
Another surprise upset of Williams over Reagan. Again, as in Idaho, Williams Libertarian-oriented conservatism attracted more support than Reagan’s conservatism.
Louisiana Primary
Democrats (59 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 41%
Dellums – 22%
Bayh – 16%
Jackson – 15%
Church –45%
McCormack – 2%
Wallace pulls out ahead in a state he carried in 1968 and with the assistance of the McKeithen political network in the state.
Republicans (45 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 52%
Percy – 31%
Williams – 17%
Stassen – 0%
Reagan victory in a Southern state.
Oregon Primary
Democrats (48 delegates; proportional)
Church – 31%
Wallace – 23%
Bayh – 20%
Jackson – 16%
Dellums – 8%
McCormack – 2%
Church victory in a Western state.
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 45%
Reagan – 44%
Williams – 10%
Stassen – 1%
Again, Williams hurts Reagan.
Tennessee Primary
Democrats (58 delegates; proportional)
Wallace – 42%
Bayh – 24%
Dellums – 17%
Jackson – 10%
Church – 5%
McCormack – 2%
Strong Wallace showing in a border state.
Republicans (51 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 52%
Percy 43%
Williams 4%
Stassen – 1%
Reagan win in a border state.
Maine Primary
Democrats (37 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 36%
Jackson – 26%
Wallace - 18%
Dellums – 11%
Church 7%
McCormack – 2%
Republicans (45 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 49%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 2%
May 26, 1976
WILLIAMS SUPRISE WINS IN NORTH DAKOTA AND IDAHO
BISMARCK, ND (AP) – Former Arizona Governor (John) “Jack” Richard Williams has racked-up two surprise Republican Party primary wins in North Dakota and Idaho. Williams, a hard right conservative, had been expected to run well behind former California Governor Ronald Reagan, the current leader of the GOP’s conservative movement, and moderate Illinois Senator Charles Percy. Williams upset the Reagan campaign’s assumptions yesterday with his dual wins.
Williams also beat Reagan in Arizona on May 18, but that victory has been attributed to the fact that Williams was the home state candidate in that contest.
Political observers have credited Williams’ wins with support from the powerful libertarian wing of the Republican Party in the two states, along with assistance from the officially chartered Libertarian parties in both States. Since the New Hampshire primaries in March, Governor Williams has been running in the Republican primaries as “the real conservative,” attacking the better known and funded conservative Reagan from the right on a variety of issues from national defense spending to budget cuts. Until the latest round of primaries he had been usually placing near the bottom, usually with less than 15% of the overall vote.
In both Idaho and North Dakota’s Republican Party Presidential primaries Williams received over one third of the vote of registered Republicans.
By forcefully advocating small government and the dismantling of many large government agencies – especially the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which is widely disliked by many western ranchers and land owners – Williams has tapped into a strong libertarian trend in these states.
“Reagan’s a conservative, so he says, but you have to look at his record as Governor of California,” comments John Calfous, the Libertarian Party candidate for North Dakota’s at-large Congressional seat and a co-chair of the North Dakota Libertarian Party, “and he’s done some positive things in that direction, but still, after eight years of Reagan , it takes a Goldwater in Sacramento to start actually dismantling that over-sized bureaucracy. Reagan did very little during his two terms to really downsize California’s government, he mostly trimmed at the edges and compromised with liberals. Compare that with what Governor Williams did in Arizona, the home of Barry Goldwater senior. He did it, and before that as Mayor of Phoenix he pursued a small government agenda. That’s what we need in Washington, and that’s why many North Dakotans supported him over Reagan.”
Calfous’ comments parallel Williams campaign theme, which has persistently questioned Ronald Reagan’s conservative credentials.
“Sure, Reagan was a Goldwater conservative when he campaigned for the Senator in 1964,” Williams told reporters in Fargo, North Dakota, “but then you have to look at what he did in Sacramento from 1967 to 1975, when he had real power. Even if he had to battle a liberal legislature – and I can understand what that’s like – he could have stood-up more for the principles he said he believed in 1964. Now, after he’s out of office, he’s back to Reagan’64. I don’t think his political record supports his rhetoric. Me, I’ll run on my record any day because in my four years as Mayor and eight as Governor I stood firm for my beliefs. I didn’t win every battle, but I didn’t let that sway me.”
“That’s the kind of thing we want to hear in North Dakota,” Calfous, who campaigned for Williams, says. “People here are tired of Washington’s big government dictating to them, and they are tired of Washington dithering while the economy goes to hell. We need real change, and Governor Williams is the guy who will do that.”
Exit polls in Idaho reflected a similar feeling among Republican voters there.
Across the northern Western States, but in particular in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, a strong turn toward Libertarian ideas has been noticed in recent state elections. The Libertarian Party currently has eight members in the North Dakota House of Representatives, and there are similar Libertarian delegations in the other States’ Legislatures as well.
“Small government and being left alone by Washington suits western tastes, and we want more of it,” Calfous said. “I intend to win in November and take that message to Washington on behalf of North Dakotans.”
Williams’ poll numbers are also strong in Alaska and Montana, where Republicans will vote in Presidential primaries on June 1. Williams is considered a threat to the Reagan campaign in both states.
Recently there had been discussions between the Reagan and Williams campaigns to the effect of having Williams drop-out of the race. After his wins in Idaho and North Dakota, and with his poll numbers rising in Alaska and Montana, talks have been suspended by the Williams camp. Williams currently has seventy-five committed delegates for the Republican National Convention, which will nominate the Republican candidate for President.
If Williams wins in Alaska and Montana, he will have one hundred delegates. This will not be enough to get the nomination, but depending upon the final outcome of the primaries, could give him a seat at the table if the Convention is forced to broker the nomination. That would occur if no candidate wins 1,130 committed delegates in the primaries, a situation which seems to be growing more likely as neither Governor Reagan nor Senator Percy seem to be sowing up the nomination.
President Gavin dropped out of the Republican primaries on May 11, but still has two hundred and seventy four committed delegates going into the convention. It is widely understood that he will release these to Senator Percy, who currently has four hundred and fifteen delegates, the next highest total after Reagan’s eight hundred and eighty eight delegates. Former Texas Governor and Treasury Secretary John Connally has eighty-nine delegates committed to him. Like Governor Williams, Governor Connally could play an important role in selecting a candidate if the delegate count is close.
The Republican National Convention will be held from August 16 – 19, 1976 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. The Republican National Committee, at the request of President Gavin, moved the convention to New York City in order to provide an economic boost to the city, which declared bankruptcy earlier this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31, 1976
WALLACE-OTHER CAMPAIGNS IN TALKS
MONTGOMERY, Alab. (AP) – Democratic Party Presidential front runner Governor George Wallace of Alabama is reportedly in talks with the campaigns of other Democratic Party contenders, in an effort to craft a united party before the Democratic National Convention in July. One aim of the effort is to avoid the chaos and division which characterized the 1968 and 1972 Democratic National Conventions, held in Chicago and Miami Beach respectively.
At the end of May Governor Wallace was the leading contender with eight hundred and nineteen committed delegates, with his closest rival, Indiana Senator Birch Bayh having six hundred and thirty three committed delegates. Even combined they do not have enough to secure the Democratic Party nomination, although that could change with the forthcoming Primary elections on June 1 and June 8.
One of these is the powerhouse California primary on June 8 with 255 delegates at stake. In a poll taken on May 29th, Senator Bayh has a four point lead in polls over Governor Wallace in that State. In 1972 California awarded its delegates on the unit rule, which caused considerable controversy at that year’s convention. In 1976 California will award its delegates according to a proportional formula in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.
According to sources close to the negotiations, a stumbling block to a Wallace-Bayh agreement – which could possibly lead to a party ticket – is the question of which one will be the Presidential nominee and which will be the Vice Presidential nominee. Senator Bayh had the second spot in 1972, and nearly won with Governor John McKeithen of Louisiana as the Presidential nominee. Senator Bayh is, according to inside sources, very unwilling to take the second spot on the ticket again, and believes that he has earned the Presidential nomination. Governor Wallace and his supporters disagree.
“Governor Wallace isn’t interested in being Vice President,” says Wallace aide Charles Snider. “He’s in this thing to win it, and he will.”
Recent visitors to the Alabama Governor’s Mansion in Montgomery have included a who’s-who of Democratic Party officials, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and former DNC Chairman Lawrence O’Brien. New York Governor Hugh Carey, former Defense Secretary and long-time Washington insider Clark Clifford and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) have also paid calls on Governor Wallace. The substance of their talks have remained a closely guarded secret, but it is believed that the various VIP visitors to Montgomery have come as emissaries of Wallace’s various competitors, each sounding out Wallace on a potential deal which could seal the nomination before the convention.
The recent visit of Andrew Young and John Lewis of Georgia has raised some eyebrows as both are regarded as emissaries of the Dellums campaign. Representative Ronald Dellums of California has been running an economically populist campaign not dissimilar in some respects to Governor Wallace’s own campaign, except that Dellums has generally been to the left of Wallace on a number of major issues. Dellums currently is in third place behind Wallace and Bayh with three hundred and fifteen committed delegates.
If Governor Wallace secures the Democratic Party nomination, he will need to consider a running mate who can balance his largely blue collar and Southern appeal. He will also need to balance his ticket with someone who has foreign policy and national political experience, or at least compliments Wallace in those areas. Wallace has only held elective office in Alabama and has never served in Washington. His foreign policy experience is practically non-existent.
In addition, Governor Wallace must shake-off his past association with the policy of segregation. In January 1963, during his first inauguration as Alabama Governor, Wallace famously declared “Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever.” Those words have haunted his national political career since. He seemed to repudiate those words and what they stood for during an emotional speech to a black congregation at a church in Newark, New Jersey at the beginning of April. Many observers have been sceptical of Wallace’s politically convenient atonement. It is noteworthy though, that as Governor of Alabama since 1971, Governor Wallace has appointed a record number of black officials and judges in this Deep South State where the traditions of Jim Crow still hold strong in custom, if no longer in law.
Ironically, in light of his 1963 remarks, George Wallace has played a part in the slow removal of many Jim Crow laws in his home state. Many of the repeals were begun by his predecessor Albert Brewer, Governor from 1968 – 1971. Upon reclaiming the office in 1971, Wallace defied the expectation of many observers by not reversing Brewer’s changes, and in some cases extending them.
In his 1976 campaign Governor Wallace has focused on cutting wasteful and self-serving Washington spending and on reliving the economic plight of working Americans who have felt the brunt of the current recession. He has said that his message, like poverty and suffering themselves, transcends race, and has even referred to the gulf between haves and have-nots in America as the “real segregation” that needs to be defeated. Ronald Dellums has used similar language in his speeches.
Wallace was shot by Arthur Bremer and permanently paralyzed during the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries. His confinement to a wheelchair has become an issue during the 1976 campaign, most famously when former President Spiro Agnew cast doubt on his ability to function during an interview on Agnew’s television program. Wallace reacted angrily to Agnew’s taunt, explaining that his condition has allowed him to understand suffering first hand, and that this enables him to better understand the suffering of the American people in the present economy.
If Wallace wins the nomination he will be the second Democratic Party nominee for President from the Deep South in a row.
The Democratic National Convention will be held from July 12 – 15 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. New York City was chosen as the site for the convention in part of infuse money into the New York area. The city was forced to declare bankruptcy earlier this year and is currently administered directly by the New York State government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate Counts at May 26:
Democrats:
George Wallace: 819.3
Birch Bayh: 633.7
Ronald Dellums: 314.7
Henry Jackson: 255.8
Frank Church: 105.5
Dolph Briscoe: 80.0
Reubin Askew: 52.0
Uncommitted: 33.0
Robert Byrd: 31.0
Stanley Tucker: 15.0
Rafael Colon: 5.0
Allocated: 2,345 (78.1%)
Required to win: 1,501
Total: 3,001
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan: 887.5
Charles Percy: 414.8
James Gavin: 273.9
John Connally: 89.8
Jack Williams: 75.0
Uncommitted: 30
Allocated: 1,771 (78.4%)
Required to win: 1,130
Total: 2,258
Good contributions all. These are exactly the sorts of discussions that are going on behind the scenes as the campaigns and party national committees and power brokers try to figure this out.
Thande
Donor
Fantastic depth of detail as usual.
Even with Gavin urging his delegates to vote for Percy, it still looks as though Reagan is the favourite for the Republican nomination. I would guess that the gulf between Wallace and Bayh is too wide for them to achieve Wallace's desire for a united party before the conference.
About Eugene McCarthy: I was very surprised on reading about him the other day that in OTL in 1980 he endorsed Reagan for the presidency...
Even with Gavin urging his delegates to vote for Percy, it still looks as though Reagan is the favourite for the Republican nomination. I would guess that the gulf between Wallace and Bayh is too wide for them to achieve Wallace's desire for a united party before the conference.
About Eugene McCarthy: I was very surprised on reading about him the other day that in OTL in 1980 he endorsed Reagan for the presidency...
WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
TIME
THE PRIMARIES: THE SOUTH RISES AGAIN?
May 31st, 1976
Former Governor Geroge Wallace's campaign continued on its roll this week as Wallace led Bayh in the South while Bayh carried his home state and performed wll enough in the North to earn him a potential VP slot if he's willing to take it.
That's the big question-if. If Wallace wins the nomination-which still isn't a sure thing, even though he currently has a comfortable lead in delegates-he will be the second Democratic nominee to come out of the South in a row. As the primary battle heads West, Wallace and Bayh will have to face the prospect that one of them may be running against Ronald Reagan, whose appeal among Republicans has only risen since President Gavin announced that he will not be seeking his party's nomination. Reagan has become the front runner since his win in Virginia, and now leads Charles Percy.
All the experts agree that the economy is what has been driving both mens' success, with Wallace's populism appealing among white blue collar voters in the North while Reagan continues to appeal to traditional conservatives in the South who have been unhappy with Gavin's presidency and are reluctant to back Percy, regarged as a more liberal Repbulican.
The other main story of this campiagn has been the rise of the South in prominence as an important political region. Wallace's campaign has put the "New South" in the spotlight, and many Southern politicians-such as Senator Jimmy Carter of Georgia-have used the attention to point to the changes that have taken place in the South since the days when Wallace, once an ardent segregationist, challenged President Kennedy over civil rights. Many agree that he still has to overcome that part of his past in order to win in the general election, although so far many Democrats and independent voters are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given the sorry state of the economy.
The West has also attracted attention, with its focus on a history of rugged individualism which Reagan and recent entry former Arizona Governor John Richard Williams have come to represent. Both men seem to be angling to be the heir apparents to Barry Goldwater's brand of libertarian-based conservatism, further marginalizing the so-called "Country Club" set. As the race for the nomination on both sides comes down to the wire with crowded fields for both parties, regardless of who wins in November it has become clear to many that the South will be an important player in many Presidential elections to come.
THE PRIMARIES: THE SOUTH RISES AGAIN?
May 31st, 1976
Former Governor Geroge Wallace's campaign continued on its roll this week as Wallace led Bayh in the South while Bayh carried his home state and performed wll enough in the North to earn him a potential VP slot if he's willing to take it.
That's the big question-if. If Wallace wins the nomination-which still isn't a sure thing, even though he currently has a comfortable lead in delegates-he will be the second Democratic nominee to come out of the South in a row. As the primary battle heads West, Wallace and Bayh will have to face the prospect that one of them may be running against Ronald Reagan, whose appeal among Republicans has only risen since President Gavin announced that he will not be seeking his party's nomination. Reagan has become the front runner since his win in Virginia, and now leads Charles Percy.
All the experts agree that the economy is what has been driving both mens' success, with Wallace's populism appealing among white blue collar voters in the North while Reagan continues to appeal to traditional conservatives in the South who have been unhappy with Gavin's presidency and are reluctant to back Percy, regarged as a more liberal Repbulican.
The other main story of this campiagn has been the rise of the South in prominence as an important political region. Wallace's campaign has put the "New South" in the spotlight, and many Southern politicians-such as Senator Jimmy Carter of Georgia-have used the attention to point to the changes that have taken place in the South since the days when Wallace, once an ardent segregationist, challenged President Kennedy over civil rights. Many agree that he still has to overcome that part of his past in order to win in the general election, although so far many Democrats and independent voters are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given the sorry state of the economy.
The West has also attracted attention, with its focus on a history of rugged individualism which Reagan and recent entry former Arizona Governor John Richard Williams have come to represent. Both men seem to be angling to be the heir apparents to Barry Goldwater's brand of libertarian-based conservatism, further marginalizing the so-called "Country Club" set. As the race for the nomination on both sides comes down to the wire with crowded fields for both parties, regardless of who wins in November it has become clear to many that the South will be an important player in many Presidential elections to come.
Last edited:
WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
I have to say, McCarthy probably doesn't have any more of a chance than he did in OTL post-1968 or any more than McGovern did post-1972 (something else that bugs me about McGovern timelines I've seen, aside from the age he would be when some people have him running.) Both were antiwar candidates and never had much of an impact in Presidential election politics after their respective runs, at least none that I could see. America's victory in Vietnam probably consigns McCarthy to even greater political obscurity, in which he is more of a relic than a player. If McCarthy is serious, I think he turns into a Democratic verion of Harold Strassen at best.
Thande
Donor
Did you miss the part a while back where it said Jimmy Carter was now a Senator in TTL?
Based on Agnew's ranting, will the religious right find themselves becoming more influential in less time in this timeline?
It's in the PDF: There are two primary days left.
June 1: Alaska, Washington, Montana, South Dakota, Rhode Island
June 8: California, Kansas, Ohio, New Jersey
Reagan will be damned near impossible to stop, by my math:
Let's take the plausible worst-case scenario for Reagan:
No victories on June 1, but a second-place finish in Washington state. (15 delegates)
On June 8, wins his home state (70 delegates), wins socially conservative Kansas (55 delegates), finishes second in Ohio (41) and New Jersey (30).
That puts him 31.5 delegates away from the finish line. Connally alone could put him over the top, or Williams, or he could peel off the 31 votes from a combination of Gavin's released delegates (he can urge them to vote for Percy, but I don't think he can order them), and Iowa's "unpledged" block -- I suspect delegates in the latter two camps (some of Gavin's delegates are just RNC picks, right?) will be especially tempted to just give Reagan the win and avoid a lengthy convention battle that will damage the party.
Reagan may win ugly, but barring a particularly nasty June surprise or an untimely death, he'll win.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I was just thinking, could the events of the past few years in Greece and Portugal lead to a more unstable Italy? The far left gets too confident, the far right too worried, a gun is fired, a bomb is planted.
I take it that the PLO has suspended major operations against Israeli and Western targets when the civil war began in Lebanon, but the Israelis are probably still taking their revenge for Munich, so what's happening on that front? I ask because I'm thinking of Spring of Youth and Lillehammer.
With a Socialist at the Elysee, would we see Djibouti and Vanuatu earning their independence earlier than in OTL?
Spain has peacekeepers in Syria, correct? Because the Soviet Union sure does. IIRC the Soviets didn't recognize the Franco regime. If the 2 countries' forces ever meet there might be trouble. I wouldn't put it past Suslov to order an incident and blame it on the Spanish.
Who's in charge of Taiwan after Chiang's death?
Here's another potential addition to your TL. The background is a real assassination attempt, but the aftermath is guesswork - I don't know how the transfer of power would really go. Tell me if you like it.
February 3, 1976
Jean-Bedel Bokassa, president for like of the Central African Republic, is assassinated at Bangui airport by a grenade thrown by a group of officers that included his own son-in-law, Fidele Obrou; several members of his entourage are also killed or injured. After some fighting within the Central African armed forces, power is taken by a group of generals, officials and Bokassa relatives that form a National Salvation Council to replace the presidency. Georges Bokassa, the slain president's eldest son, is the Council's public face, but the true distribution in power within it is a mystery to outsiders. Obrou, having failed to take control in the aftermath of the assassination, flees the country and surfaces weeks later in Ethiopia. Trials are held against those accused of having sided with Obrou and there are reports of massacres against his people, the Banda. Most foreign governments recognize the National Salvation Council, but its decision on February 16 to place former president David Dacko (the man Bokassa ousted to gain power) under house arrest leads to criticism from France and some African nations.
I take it that the PLO has suspended major operations against Israeli and Western targets when the civil war began in Lebanon, but the Israelis are probably still taking their revenge for Munich, so what's happening on that front? I ask because I'm thinking of Spring of Youth and Lillehammer.
With a Socialist at the Elysee, would we see Djibouti and Vanuatu earning their independence earlier than in OTL?
Spain has peacekeepers in Syria, correct? Because the Soviet Union sure does. IIRC the Soviets didn't recognize the Franco regime. If the 2 countries' forces ever meet there might be trouble. I wouldn't put it past Suslov to order an incident and blame it on the Spanish.
Who's in charge of Taiwan after Chiang's death?
Here's another potential addition to your TL. The background is a real assassination attempt, but the aftermath is guesswork - I don't know how the transfer of power would really go. Tell me if you like it.
February 3, 1976
Jean-Bedel Bokassa, president for like of the Central African Republic, is assassinated at Bangui airport by a grenade thrown by a group of officers that included his own son-in-law, Fidele Obrou; several members of his entourage are also killed or injured. After some fighting within the Central African armed forces, power is taken by a group of generals, officials and Bokassa relatives that form a National Salvation Council to replace the presidency. Georges Bokassa, the slain president's eldest son, is the Council's public face, but the true distribution in power within it is a mystery to outsiders. Obrou, having failed to take control in the aftermath of the assassination, flees the country and surfaces weeks later in Ethiopia. Trials are held against those accused of having sided with Obrou and there are reports of massacres against his people, the Banda. Most foreign governments recognize the National Salvation Council, but its decision on February 16 to place former president David Dacko (the man Bokassa ousted to gain power) under house arrest leads to criticism from France and some African nations.
Last edited:
And then the Rubber Hits The Road
June 1, 1976
Montana Primary
Democrats (25 delegates; unit)
Church – 30%
Wallace – 24%
Bayh – 22%
Jackson – 19%
McCormack – 3%
Dellums – 2%
Republicans (10 delegates; unit)
Williams – 36%
Percy – 35%
Reagan – 28%
Stassen – 1%
Rhode Island Primary
Democrats (18 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 36%
Wallace 29%
Dellums – 18%
Jackson – 10%
McCormack – 4%
Church – 3%
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 40%
Williams – 10%
Stassen – 1%
South Dakota Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 41%
Church – 29%
Jackson – 16%
Bayh – 14%
McCormack – 0%
Dellums – 0%
Republicans (12 delegates; unit)
Percy – 39%
Reagan – 38%
Williams – 22%
Stassen – 1%
Alaska Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Jackson – 31%
Bayh – 27%
Wallace – 23%
Church – 16%
Dellums – 2%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (25 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 37%
Percy – 36%
Williams – 26%
Stassen – 1%
Washington Primary
Democrats (50 delegates; proportional)
Jackson – 45%
Bayh – 26%
Wallace – 11%
Dellums – 9%
Church – 8%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 42%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 14%
Stassen – 3%
June 8, 1976
California Primary
Democrats (255 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 32%
Dellums – 24%
Wallace – 23%
Church – 11%
Jackson – 9%
McCormack - 1%
Republicans (140 delegates; proportional)
Reagan – 41%
Percy – 32%
McCloskey - 14%
Williams – 12%
Stassen – 1%
New Jersey Primary
Democrats (112 delegates; proportional)
Dellums – 34%
Wallace – 31%
Bayh – 14%
Jackson – 12%
Church – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (80 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 50%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 1%
Kansas Primary
Democrats (42 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 32%
Wallace – 31%
Church – 16%
Dellums – 12%
Jackson – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (55 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 36%
Percy 35%
Williams – 28%
Stassen – 1%
Ohio Primary
Democrats (114 delegates, proportional)
Bayh – 35%
Wallace – 32%
Dellums – 16%
Jackson – 14%
Church – 2%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (110 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 40%
Williams – 11%
Stassen – 1%
Final Allocation of Delegates – June 9, 1976
Democrats:
George C. Wallace – 953.8 (547.2 needed)
Birch Bayh – 898.3 (602.7 needed)
Ronald Dellums – 493.3 (1,007.7 needed)
Henry Jackson – 304.2 (1,196.8 needed)
Frank Church – 135.5
Dolph Briscoe – 80.0
Reubin Askew – 52.0
Uncommitted – 33.0
Robert Byrd – 31.0
Stanley Tucker – 15.0
Rafael Colon 5.0
Allocated: 3,001 (100%)
Needed to Win: 1,501
The primaries having produced no winning candidate, the 1976 Democratic Party Nomination for President and Vice President will be decided at the 1976 Democratic National Convention (or in bargaining in the weeks leading-up to it).
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan – 1,143.3
Charles Percy – 618.5
James Gavin – 273.9
Jack Williams – 102.5
John Connally – 89.8
Uncommitted – 30.0
Allocated: 2,258 (100%)
Needed to win: 1,130
As a result of the California and Ohio primaries on June 8, 1976, Ronald Reagan of California has won a sufficient number of delegates to secure the 1976 Republican Party nomination for President. Ronald W. Reagan will be the 1976 Republican Party nominee for President of the United States.
June 17, 1976
In a bid to unify the Republican Party presumptive Presidential nominee Ronald W. Reagan announces that he will chose Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) as his Vice Presidential running mate. Sen. Percy confirms that he has accepted a place on Reagan’s ticket.
From: Charles Snider – My Times with George Corley Wallace
After watching Reagan and Percy speak on television, the Governor turned to me and said, “so they got themselves an actor and a big business tycoon. Humph!” He took a long drag on his stoggie. “I can get my own house broke business executive and then some. I got a guy who’ll bring me all the civil rights liberals, the Kennedy people and has got as many business and foreign policy chops as ol’ Chuck Percy.”
“But, sir,” I objected. “We don’t even have the nomination and..”
“You look at them two, and then you ask Ron Dellums and the others if they think Birch Bayh can beat that? You ask ‘em, you’ll see. And then you ask Dellums if he wants that in the White House for the next four years. Ask him which way he wants to roll the dice. The Republicans have just done me a big favour,” he said before taking another stoke on that stoggie. “First get me Clark Clifford, and then we’ll talk to Ron Dellums.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Dellums – Going Left to be Right
After Clark Clifford’s call I had a lot to think about.
Did I really think Birch Bayh could beat Ronald Reagan?
One overwhelming fact informed my view of that, and I would have been a fool to ignore it. It was that, in both parties, the outside guys had done well. Myself, Wallace, Reagan and Jack Williams had been the stand-outs; if you counted-up the votes we had something like 57% of all Democrats and Republicans who voted in the primaries between us. Williams may have been a minor player, but he’d survived most of the Republican pack with his pro-Libertarian message. The people were hungry for change; they wanted a champion to lead them out of this mess. They may have had strong differences of opinion about who that champion was and what he should do, but on the overall theme there was a clear point – they wanted someone with new ideas because the old ones were just not working anymore.
Charles Percy and Birch Bayh had failed because they were inside guys, a fact reinforced by the title “Senator” before their names. The President had failed in the Republican primaries for a different reason, but looking at the result, I could only think that even if Percy had dropped out and Gavin had stayed in, the result would have been no different. Looking at the Republican results, it seemed a safe assumption.
With the title “Representative” before my name, I might well have suffered the same insider association, except my message had been anti-system enough, and I was enough of an outspoken critic of the establishment that I could be seen as a credible change candidate.
For all his good qualities and outstanding record, Birch Bayh wasn’t that man. Personally, I thought Reagan’s conservatism would be a disaster for the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. Wallace, for all his tough talk on segregation and law-and-order, had built schools, roads and provided for the disadvantaged in his state. He was more than just another cracker politician from the Deep South.
It wasn’t long after my first phone conversation with Clark Clifford that I got the call from Governor Wallace. By then my decision was made. He and I were just going to have to hammer out the details, and then draw the support we needed before the convention.
“Mr. Dellums, may I call you Ron?”
“Yes, Governor.”
“Then you call me George, Ron. Anyway, it seems we may have a chance to put together a coalition to keep Mr. Reagan and out of the White House,” Wallace said.
“So it seems Gov...George. What did you have in mind?”
“Would you have time to come to Montgomery to discuss it? I would be happy to make the Governor’s mansion and its facilities available to you if you can make it, Ron.”
What could I say? Of course I accepted the invitation.
I didn’t expect him to offer me the Vice Presidency, in fact I would have thought he was crazy if he did, and denounced the offer as an empty, self-serving stunt on his part.
While I am an idealist, I am also realistic enough to understand that the United States in 1976 was not ready for a black man as the second most powerful man in the land, a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It would have been a historic gesture of course, especially since the nominee we were putting forward was George Wallace, it would have signalled an end to the era of segregation and the old Democratic Party of the South for good. But it would have been a futile gesture, and there was no point handing Ronald Reagan the solid South and a easy victory over that. We could do better, perhaps even more historic things, if we won and kept Reagan out of the Presidency.
What I was hoping for – and ready to do some hard bargaining for with Wallace – was either HUD or HEW Secretary, with some say over who filled the other post. I was also going to make a pitch to have some input over who he put into the Treasury, if not the Secretary then at the policy making Assistant Secretary level. And, because you always bargain from your most ambitious position, I also wanted influence over who would be Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, with a higher priority in a Wallace Administration for that continent’s political and economic development.
When John Lewis, Andy Young and I got to Montgomery, after our introductory pleasantries in front of the T.V. cameras, Governor Wallace took me aside and whispered in my ear the name of the man he had in mind for the number two spot. I had to say that it took me by surprise, not that the man in question wasn’t qualified. It was just someone I hadn’t considered. But on reflection I had to say the choice was absolutely inspired for a number of reasons. If we could get it through the convention it would be a ticket that would stand-up and take notice.
In my mind I played over the black-and-white images from over a decade ago – during the Civil Rights clashes - and contrasted them with the two men working side-by-side as Presidential and Vice Presidential nominee. Not only would it show a changed George Wallace, it would in fact make a profound statement about how far we had come. And that ticket might just win.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 1976
Senators Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Henry Jackson (D-WA) announce that they will be running together as a ticket for the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominations respectively. The Bayh-Jackson ticket urges other Democratic candidates to join with them “to pull our party together for the coming battle with Governor Reagan and his agenda of despair and negativity.”
June 1, 1976
Montana Primary
Democrats (25 delegates; unit)
Church – 30%
Wallace – 24%
Bayh – 22%
Jackson – 19%
McCormack – 3%
Dellums – 2%
Republicans (10 delegates; unit)
Williams – 36%
Percy – 35%
Reagan – 28%
Stassen – 1%
Rhode Island Primary
Democrats (18 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 36%
Wallace 29%
Dellums – 18%
Jackson – 10%
McCormack – 4%
Church – 3%
Republicans (15 delegates; unit)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 40%
Williams – 10%
Stassen – 1%
South Dakota Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Wallace – 41%
Church – 29%
Jackson – 16%
Bayh – 14%
McCormack – 0%
Dellums – 0%
Republicans (12 delegates; unit)
Percy – 39%
Reagan – 38%
Williams – 22%
Stassen – 1%
Alaska Primary
Democrats (15 delegates; unit)
Jackson – 31%
Bayh – 27%
Wallace – 23%
Church – 16%
Dellums – 2%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (25 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 37%
Percy – 36%
Williams – 26%
Stassen – 1%
Washington Primary
Democrats (50 delegates; proportional)
Jackson – 45%
Bayh – 26%
Wallace – 11%
Dellums – 9%
Church – 8%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (40 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 42%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 14%
Stassen – 3%
June 8, 1976
California Primary
Democrats (255 delegates; proportional)
Bayh – 32%
Dellums – 24%
Wallace – 23%
Church – 11%
Jackson – 9%
McCormack - 1%
Republicans (140 delegates; proportional)
Reagan – 41%
Percy – 32%
McCloskey - 14%
Williams – 12%
Stassen – 1%
New Jersey Primary
Democrats (112 delegates; proportional)
Dellums – 34%
Wallace – 31%
Bayh – 14%
Jackson – 12%
Church – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (80 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 50%
Reagan – 41%
Williams – 8%
Stassen – 1%
Kansas Primary
Democrats (42 delegates; unit)
Bayh – 32%
Wallace – 31%
Church – 16%
Dellums – 12%
Jackson – 6%
McCormack – 3%
Republicans (55 delegates; unit)
Reagan – 36%
Percy 35%
Williams – 28%
Stassen – 1%
Ohio Primary
Democrats (114 delegates, proportional)
Bayh – 35%
Wallace – 32%
Dellums – 16%
Jackson – 14%
Church – 2%
McCormack – 1%
Republicans (110 delegates; proportional)
Percy – 48%
Reagan – 40%
Williams – 11%
Stassen – 1%
Final Allocation of Delegates – June 9, 1976
Democrats:
George C. Wallace – 953.8 (547.2 needed)
Birch Bayh – 898.3 (602.7 needed)
Ronald Dellums – 493.3 (1,007.7 needed)
Henry Jackson – 304.2 (1,196.8 needed)
Frank Church – 135.5
Dolph Briscoe – 80.0
Reubin Askew – 52.0
Uncommitted – 33.0
Robert Byrd – 31.0
Stanley Tucker – 15.0
Rafael Colon 5.0
Allocated: 3,001 (100%)
Needed to Win: 1,501
The primaries having produced no winning candidate, the 1976 Democratic Party Nomination for President and Vice President will be decided at the 1976 Democratic National Convention (or in bargaining in the weeks leading-up to it).
Republicans:
Ronald Reagan – 1,143.3
Charles Percy – 618.5
James Gavin – 273.9
Jack Williams – 102.5
John Connally – 89.8
Uncommitted – 30.0
Allocated: 2,258 (100%)
Needed to win: 1,130
As a result of the California and Ohio primaries on June 8, 1976, Ronald Reagan of California has won a sufficient number of delegates to secure the 1976 Republican Party nomination for President. Ronald W. Reagan will be the 1976 Republican Party nominee for President of the United States.
June 17, 1976
In a bid to unify the Republican Party presumptive Presidential nominee Ronald W. Reagan announces that he will chose Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) as his Vice Presidential running mate. Sen. Percy confirms that he has accepted a place on Reagan’s ticket.
From: Charles Snider – My Times with George Corley Wallace
After watching Reagan and Percy speak on television, the Governor turned to me and said, “so they got themselves an actor and a big business tycoon. Humph!” He took a long drag on his stoggie. “I can get my own house broke business executive and then some. I got a guy who’ll bring me all the civil rights liberals, the Kennedy people and has got as many business and foreign policy chops as ol’ Chuck Percy.”
“But, sir,” I objected. “We don’t even have the nomination and..”
“You look at them two, and then you ask Ron Dellums and the others if they think Birch Bayh can beat that? You ask ‘em, you’ll see. And then you ask Dellums if he wants that in the White House for the next four years. Ask him which way he wants to roll the dice. The Republicans have just done me a big favour,” he said before taking another stoke on that stoggie. “First get me Clark Clifford, and then we’ll talk to Ron Dellums.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Dellums – Going Left to be Right
After Clark Clifford’s call I had a lot to think about.
Did I really think Birch Bayh could beat Ronald Reagan?
One overwhelming fact informed my view of that, and I would have been a fool to ignore it. It was that, in both parties, the outside guys had done well. Myself, Wallace, Reagan and Jack Williams had been the stand-outs; if you counted-up the votes we had something like 57% of all Democrats and Republicans who voted in the primaries between us. Williams may have been a minor player, but he’d survived most of the Republican pack with his pro-Libertarian message. The people were hungry for change; they wanted a champion to lead them out of this mess. They may have had strong differences of opinion about who that champion was and what he should do, but on the overall theme there was a clear point – they wanted someone with new ideas because the old ones were just not working anymore.
Charles Percy and Birch Bayh had failed because they were inside guys, a fact reinforced by the title “Senator” before their names. The President had failed in the Republican primaries for a different reason, but looking at the result, I could only think that even if Percy had dropped out and Gavin had stayed in, the result would have been no different. Looking at the Republican results, it seemed a safe assumption.
With the title “Representative” before my name, I might well have suffered the same insider association, except my message had been anti-system enough, and I was enough of an outspoken critic of the establishment that I could be seen as a credible change candidate.
For all his good qualities and outstanding record, Birch Bayh wasn’t that man. Personally, I thought Reagan’s conservatism would be a disaster for the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. Wallace, for all his tough talk on segregation and law-and-order, had built schools, roads and provided for the disadvantaged in his state. He was more than just another cracker politician from the Deep South.
It wasn’t long after my first phone conversation with Clark Clifford that I got the call from Governor Wallace. By then my decision was made. He and I were just going to have to hammer out the details, and then draw the support we needed before the convention.
“Mr. Dellums, may I call you Ron?”
“Yes, Governor.”
“Then you call me George, Ron. Anyway, it seems we may have a chance to put together a coalition to keep Mr. Reagan and out of the White House,” Wallace said.
“So it seems Gov...George. What did you have in mind?”
“Would you have time to come to Montgomery to discuss it? I would be happy to make the Governor’s mansion and its facilities available to you if you can make it, Ron.”
What could I say? Of course I accepted the invitation.
I didn’t expect him to offer me the Vice Presidency, in fact I would have thought he was crazy if he did, and denounced the offer as an empty, self-serving stunt on his part.
While I am an idealist, I am also realistic enough to understand that the United States in 1976 was not ready for a black man as the second most powerful man in the land, a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It would have been a historic gesture of course, especially since the nominee we were putting forward was George Wallace, it would have signalled an end to the era of segregation and the old Democratic Party of the South for good. But it would have been a futile gesture, and there was no point handing Ronald Reagan the solid South and a easy victory over that. We could do better, perhaps even more historic things, if we won and kept Reagan out of the Presidency.
What I was hoping for – and ready to do some hard bargaining for with Wallace – was either HUD or HEW Secretary, with some say over who filled the other post. I was also going to make a pitch to have some input over who he put into the Treasury, if not the Secretary then at the policy making Assistant Secretary level. And, because you always bargain from your most ambitious position, I also wanted influence over who would be Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, with a higher priority in a Wallace Administration for that continent’s political and economic development.
When John Lewis, Andy Young and I got to Montgomery, after our introductory pleasantries in front of the T.V. cameras, Governor Wallace took me aside and whispered in my ear the name of the man he had in mind for the number two spot. I had to say that it took me by surprise, not that the man in question wasn’t qualified. It was just someone I hadn’t considered. But on reflection I had to say the choice was absolutely inspired for a number of reasons. If we could get it through the convention it would be a ticket that would stand-up and take notice.
In my mind I played over the black-and-white images from over a decade ago – during the Civil Rights clashes - and contrasted them with the two men working side-by-side as Presidential and Vice Presidential nominee. Not only would it show a changed George Wallace, it would in fact make a profound statement about how far we had come. And that ticket might just win.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 1976
Senators Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Henry Jackson (D-WA) announce that they will be running together as a ticket for the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominations respectively. The Bayh-Jackson ticket urges other Democratic candidates to join with them “to pull our party together for the coming battle with Governor Reagan and his agenda of despair and negativity.”
Last edited:
The math was for Reagan, especially once the South got going; I just didn't want to make it too easy for him. But he does have a divided party on his hands, and is in a less secure position than he was OTL 1980. So he's the Republican...for now...
But of course, in this time line, nothing is sure until it happens, oh and Mr. Reagan, avoid any unnecessary flights...
NOOOOOOOO! Even if Reagan wins theres the Iran hostage crisis. Speaking of which what will happen to Iran?
- Status