1976 Democrats, if not Carter, what can they do?

Zioneer

Banned
So let's assume Carter loses the 1976 Democratic primary, and that the Democrat who defeated him goes on to win the election.

Whether Frank Church, Mo Udall, or even Jerry Brown wins, what does the winner do, and can they avert the problems that led Carter to lose the 1980 election?

What does the winner do during their presidency? Aka, first, what does Church do, second, what does Udall do, and third, what does Brown (or whoever would be the third most likely winner) do during his presidency?

Can any of them stave off the popularity of Reagan?
 
How come Henry Jackson is never mentioned in these "Alternate Democrats in '76" threads? He had a viable shot, IMO.

And if Carter never gets in the field, then Wallace is a bigger contender. Mind you, his chances at the nomination are practically nill, but without Carter, Wallace wins more of the South and has a bigger say at the convention.
 
How come Henry Jackson is never mentioned in these "Alternate Democrats in '76" threads? He had a viable shot, IMO.

And if Carter never gets in the field, then Wallace is a bigger contender. Mind you, his chances at the nomination are practically nill, but without Carter, Wallace wins more of the South and has a bigger say at the convention.

As a fan of Henry Jackson (I considered myself a "Jackson Democrat" for a considerable amount of time) having Jackson win in 1976 would require a POD well before the beginning of primary season. Robert G. Kaufman in his recent Biography of Jackson Henry Jackson: A Life in Politics (2010) points out several factors that doomed Jackson's campaign from the getgo.

1)He's a dull and decidedly uncharismatic public speaker, lacking a sense of humor or the ability to engage a large crowd. Though he did do well one-on-one or on Meet the Press style talkshows he consistently failed at other aspects of public speaking. Furthermore he was completely unwilling to change his speaking style to suit changing realities.

2)Jackson's an old-school Democrat and as such was unsuited to the post-1968 reality of the primary system. He would've done reasonably well had the party retained it's pre-1968 convention system. However his failure to understand the importance of early state primaries, delegates, and momentum crippled his campaign strategy from the start. Also Jackson believed that in order to win the 1976 race he needed to present himself as the only Northern Liberal who could beat George Wallace while completely ignoring issues posed by the rise of the Far Left of the party. These two factors led to a poorly executed campaign.

3)Jackson was becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the party ideologically. His views on foreign policy and social issues such as homosexuality, feminism, abortion, and civil rights were FAR to the right of the majority of the party. All he really could campaign on was his Keynesian economic policies and even those weren't that popular. His consistent and unrepentant support for the military and for Vietnam really hurt him in the changing nature of the Democratic party. Take for example Iowa, even had Jackson ran in Iowa he would've lost as his foreign policy views alone would've lost him the majority of Iowa's democrats.

4)1976 was the year of the outsider. Discontent with Washington and Washington insiders was at an all time high among the American public. Jackson on the other hand was the consummate Washington insider having had a long and successful career in the Senate and served on numerous committees.

There are some other factors that make a Jackson victory in 1976 a non-starter but those are the four big ones IMO. That being said I am working on a TL with a POD in 1972 that leads to Jackson winning in '76...
 
Wallace hasn't a chance after 1968: first it takes a lot of courage and honorability for a disabled man to run for elective office (see Bob Kerrey who saw his career destroyed forever after the revelations on his terrible deeds in Vietnam, or Max Cleland), but even if he repented from them, his name will be forever associated to Dixiecrats, segregation and the American Independant Party. If he gets the nod, I would expect a split Democratic Party immediately, with a McGovern Democrat running against the Wallace ticket.

I could see Reubin Askew running as the Southern New Democrat (popular governor of Florida, and keynote speaker at the 1972 DNC), or even Fred Harris a liberal Southerner, but the later is also an insider. As of a succesful presidency, I could say Eagle Claw succeeding or maybe having a good economist as SecTreas.
 
Wallace hasn't a chance after 1968: first it takes a lot of courage and honorability for a disabled man to run for elective office (see Bob Kerrey who saw his career destroyed forever after the revelations on his terrible deeds in Vietnam, or Max Cleland), but even if he repented from them, his name will be forever associated to Dixiecrats, segregation and the American Independant Party. If he gets the nod, I would expect a split Democratic Party immediately, with a McGovern Democrat running against the Wallace ticket.

I never said Wallace would win the nomination, but that without Carter in the running, he would almost certainly win substantially more of the South, which will be a factor come the Convention.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Teddy's too much of a Washington insider for '76 and Scoop Jackson's campaign is a non-starter. Brown or Mondale probably have the best shot at it, probably Brown since he's an outsider. But he might be too far out there for the electorate.

On the other hand, Mondale is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Church might be a good running mate for Brown.
 
Last edited:
Top