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...