1976: Carter (D) v Reagan (R) v Rockefeller (I)

Let's say Ford is assassinated in 1975 by Lynette Fromme and Rockefeller is President. Reagan proceeds to run against him in the primary and win handily.

Rockefeller (being a man with a lot of money and a lot of ambition) proceeds to run as an independent liberal candidate with his friend Margaret Chase Smith.

Jimmy Carter picks either John Glenn or William Proxmire as his running mate, seeking to double down on being an outsider candidate.

Rockefeller-Smith
Reagan-Schweikert
Carter-Glenn/Proxmire


Reagan likely has California locked up and Rockefeller-Smith would likely play very strongly in the northeast. Carter has the South secured. It looks like it'd be a contest for the midwest, I think.
 
Should that title be Carter (D) Reagan (R) and Rockefeller (I)?

Otherwise, Reagan lost the Midwest to Ford in 1976 IOTL, so I don't think he'd do any better than Ford there for the general. Carter would probably benefit from the Rockefeller run, too, so I think he'd have a rather significant advantage.
 
Should that title be Carter (D) Reagan (R) and Rockefeller (I)?

Otherwise, Reagan lost the Midwest to Ford in 1976 IOTL, so I don't think he'd do any better than Ford there for the general. Carter would probably benefit from the Rockefeller run, too, so I think he'd have a rather significant advantage.

You are correct. I made a typo in the name.

Anderson, despite being a Republican, pulled more from Carter than Reagan by the end OTL. I'm not sure if that wouldn't also hold true for the liberal rockefeller.
 
You are correct. I made a typo in the name.

Anderson, despite being a Republican, pulled more from Carter than Reagan by the end OTL. I'm not sure if that wouldn't also hold true for the liberal rockefeller.

I think the difference would be Rockefeller's status as the sitting President. He'd naturally get more pull than Anderson, and in the absence of a Ted Kennedy run hurting Carter, I think Democrats would be less susceptible to getting lured away, especially in the first election after Watergate, and after 8 years of Republicans.
 
what happens if the EC gets deadlocked ???
The election get thrown out to the House, as per the 12th amendment

If I remember correctly, that's not the newly elected House that decides, but the departing one, thus 1974 House and its huge Democratic majority (291 D vs 144 R)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1974

As the House vote on State delegations and not a straigthforward one representative = 1 vote, we would have:
Republican Delegations: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont - Total 11
Democratic Delegations: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawai, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming - Total 35
Tied Delegations: Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia - Total 4

The 1974 House election was such a landslide that the Democrats control more than enough state delegations to win the election in the House. It follows that logically, they'll elect the Democratic Candidate: Carter. I see little chance of a significant switch to Rockefeller.
 
Should that title be Carter (D) Reagan (R) and Rockefeller (I)?

Otherwise, Reagan lost the Midwest to Ford in 1976 IOTL, so I don't think he'd do any better than Ford there for the general.

If he gets the same percentage of the total vote in November as Ford did, he sweeps the region, except Minnesota. (Ford's 48.65 percent in Ohio and 47.83% in Wisconsin would surely be enough to carry those states in a three-way race.)

So presumably what you mean is that Reagan would not do any better in percentage of the two-party vote (i.e., against Carter, and ignoring Rockefeller and all other candidates) than Ford did in OTL. This is true only if you assume Rocky won't draw more votes from Carter than from Reagan. I am by no means sure of that; I think even many moderate Republicans will resent Rocky staying in the race as a "spoiler" and a lot of his votes will be from northern urban and suburban voters who reluctantly voted for Carter in OTL but found him culturally a bit unfamiliar (many of them voted for Anderson in 1980 in OTL). In particular, if Reagan chooses a moderate running mate he can undercut Rocky's November appeal to moderate Republicans.

(Theoretically there could be legal obstacles to Rocky's getting on the ballot in some starts, but like Anderson he would probably overcome them. http://ballot-access.org/2016/04/24...publican-race-and-declared-as-an-independent/)
 
Last edited:
I think the difference would be Rockefeller's status as the sitting President. He'd naturally get more pull than Anderson, and in the absence of a Ted Kennedy run hurting Carter, I think Democrats would be less susceptible to getting lured away, especially in the first election after Watergate, and after 8 years of Republicans.
Living in Ohio for that election was actually the first I could vote in for president. People were not thrilled with Carter they were more concerned with conservative Reagan that Carter still barely carry the state. Presume it is the 1980 Reagan running I see him winning. I'm pretty sure rockafellers indiscretions like the one he died in his office will come out. Rockefeller and Carter are going to be fighting fighting for the same votes maybe 10% of the Republicans but that would be in the Northeast and maybe go for Rockefeller I really don't see Carter winning course I didn't then either made me question whether there's a God. Thanks to Amy's advice we made it through his four years without her how would we have had nuclear proliferation discussed. I get the feeling that you know who I voted for in 76.
 
Reagan likely has California locked up and Rockefeller-Smith would likely play very strongly in the northeast. Carter has the South secured. It looks like it'd be a contest for the midwest, I think.

I know Carter isn't tainted by incumbency in 1976 but wouldn't Reagan's rhetoric still play as well in the South in this timeline as it did in OTL's 1980? He might peel off some Southern states as well as Texas.
 
Top