1976 election minus Watergate

JoeMulk

Banned
If the Watergate scandal had somehow been swept under the rug what would the 76 election look like with Nixon as an outgoing two-termer?
 

Bearcat

Banned
Jackson v. Reagan, Reagan likely wins. Whether Reagan wins in '80 depends on how he handles that cursed 4 years.

IDK, the structural changes in Republican convention/primary rules that happened OTL after '76 haven't happened yet. Reagan was a rock star to the conservatives, but very much not so much to the Republican machine. they'll want a nice safe, bland paleoconservative or moderate. maybe Ford (assuming Agnew still went down), maybe someone else. I think their nomination will be a close run thing.

Reagan kills Scoop but if its Jerry Ford versus Jackson, anything could happen. Including half the country sleeping through election day. Neither is exactly a vibrant candidate.

Scoop Jackson would piss off a lot of people, most of them Democrats. Very conservative for '76. But without the 'throw the bums out' mentality post-Watergate, I can't see Peanut gaining traction.
 
Who gets the nod for the GOP would depend on who is Nixon's VP post-Agnew. With no Watergate, it wouldn't neccessarily be Ford. In fact, it almost certainly wouldn't be Ford; without the likelihood of his resignation, Nixon would have a freer hand with Congress.
 
The other choices would be Reagan or Bush. Connally would never be confirmed by the Dems, plus he has too many skeletons in his closet. Reagan refused in '68, refused any Cabinet post of his choosing when offered by Ford in '74 and the vice presidency that same year. It seems that he would not leave Sacramento before his term expired no matter what the offer was, so it looks like Bush.
 
Also, while I wouldn't rule Reagan out, he's not going to be as potent as he was in OTL. OTL, the GOP establishment was discredited and in disaray post-Watergate, and there was intense anger against Ford because of stuff like Rockerfeller etc from the right.

I wouldn't count Reagan out by any means, but especially if he's facing Nixon's VP and the party establishment united behind the veep, he's not going to cruise to the nomination. A lot would depend on what kind of shape, politically, Nixon is in as his presidency draws to a close.
 
Well, don't forget that inflation was high and the economy was poor in 1976. Plus, in all but one post-1952 election, the White House has switched parties after eight years.

I'm not so sure the nominee would be Scoop, who always had some support among the DC establishment but who rank-and-file Democrats never particularly liked. In real-life he fell completely flat not because of Watergate but because he unwisely skipped Iowa and NH and because liberals in the party hated him but thought they could at least stomach Carter. He might do okay if he sweeps the Southern primaries, but he'd face competition from George Wallace and quite possibly Jimmy Carter.

I know this goes well against CW, but I actually don't know that Carter can be completely counted out. Yes, the CW is that he was purely a response to Watergate, but there were a number of other factors at play that wouldn't go away in this TL. Remember that Carter was the only Democrat to actually understand the new primary rules, contesting every state including all the early ones. There was also deep dissatisfaction among Democrats with the party's DC establishment - dissatisfaction that had little do with Watergate and a whole lot do with issues like Vietnam and the battles between Labour and the New Left. And Carter was also the only candidate who was able to get the support of Southern Dems while holding onto liberals. So I think he'd be a factor in the Democratic primaries even absent Watergate.

In short, though, I'd say the Democratic field is extremely difficult to predict. It might have gone to the convention. Jerry Brown, Jimmy Carter, Mo Udall, or a compromise ticket headed by some Labor-friendly generic Dem like Walter Mondale or Adlai Stevenson III. Humphrey wouldn't have run because he knew he was dying of cancer. And Ted Kennedy would sit out because of Chappaquiddick and his own ambivalence about being president.

I think RB's right that Reagan would be the probable Republican nominee, but his odds would be no better than 50/50, especially considering how extreme he was viewed by most of the public at the time. I suppose one interesting question is whether Reagan could then come back in 1980 for a repeat nomination and win assuming OTL conditions between 1977 and 1980.
 
Last edited:
This is a good question. Nixon had been on the political scene since 1946. He would have a big say so in who would be the GOP nominee. No Agnew but no Watergate, I say no Ford. You can't count Connelly out. The main reason Carter won was Watergate. But Carter was running, Watergate or no Watergate. I can't see Jackson getting the nomation too boring bad stump speech maker. Mo Udall came in second to Carter a lot. i can see him making a good showing. The question is Kennedy. How much of no Watergate causes changes in him. The nomination is his if he wants it. I am throwing out a wildcard election of Kennedy(Carter VP) beating Connally( VP. Bush) in a close election. The rise of the conservatives is just around the corner though.
 
Republicans often nominate someone who lost in the previous primary round, but apart from Nixon, never someone who lost in the general. Reagan's the only other Republican who would be in a good position to break this rule, however.

Carter is completely unknown at the time. It's ironic that liberals were supporting the not-so-closeted New Democratic candidate as they'd find out later with the triple deregulation though. I would still say that Jackson is the best compromise: liberals made the same mistake with him that they (IMO) do with Lieberman- sure he's a hawk but domestically he's with you down the line. Jackson-Carter ticket?
 
This is a good question. Nixon had been on the political scene since 1946. He would have a big say so in who would be the GOP nominee. No Agnew but no Watergate, I say no Ford. You can't count Connelly out. The main reason Carter won was Watergate. But Carter was running, Watergate or no Watergate. I can't see Jackson getting the nomation too boring bad stump speech maker. Mo Udall came in second to Carter a lot. i can see him making a good showing. The question is Kennedy. How much of no Watergate causes changes in him. The nomination is his if he wants it. I am throwing out a wildcard election of Kennedy(Carter VP) beating Connally( VP. Bush) in a close election. The rise of the conservatives is just around the corner though.

Connally has far too much baggage and Nixon knows it. Ted Kennedy was never interested in the presidency- he ran in 1980 a) because he hated Carter b) because he wanted to reestablish New Deal control after 4 years of ND control. Similar to why his brother ran 12 years prior, but from the opposite ideological angle- something I always find deliciously ironic. The latter has all the candidates united against Carter. Ted cannot win blue-collar voters, especially not against Ronald Reagan. I say Reagan/Baker v. Jackson/Carter.
 
Not to change the topic, but I've always actually felt that the bigger immediate change with no Watergate isn't 1976: it's 1974. Without Watergate, it's still quite plausible that a Democrat - even Carter - wins in 1976, faces the same OTL disasters then loses in 1980. But what definitely wouldn't have happened was 1974's Republican midterm wipeout. Instead, Democrats would have made modest gains, but no huge landslide. That means that Republicans remain within striking distance in the House and probably retake the House in 1980.

No 1974 landslide also creates some huge butterflies, since the 1974 Watergate Babies dominated Congress and included numerous prominent Democratic pols. So you'd wind up with some fairly significant changes starting in the 1980s.
 
You'd need +30, but does Ford retire in Rhodes' favor or achieve his lifetime goal of the speakership?

Hell, among other butterflies Clinton and Gingrich might win, which sets up interesting possibilities.
 
Did Nixon like Reagan? I know he liked Connally. He wanted him to be his VEEP. He left his wife's death bed to go to Connally's funeral. But because of Watergate he could not pull that off. Because their is no Watergate. Nixon gets Connally . Connally then gets the GOP nod in 76 Because that is what Nixon wanted. I think Nixon had the political muscle to pull it off. Now Kennedy being President. He really did not want the job. But I can see him running now. His mishaps are a scandal and Watergate highlights that. No Watergate and it not noticed as much. Most blue collar workers in the 1970's were union people. It was not until the 80's that unions got their bad name. Carter was running hard. But in "Marathon" the book on the 76 election, talked about running with Kenendy. I thought Connally would run with Bush. But both are from Texas. That can't be done. So does Bush go back to Connecticut? Cheney went back to Wyoming in 2000. The last person I think who would get the Democrtas bid is Scoop. He was dish water dull and too conservative. Liberals still ran the party then. Fun to talk about though.
 
Nixon was OK with Reagan, not so impressed with Reagan's intellect. Of course Nixon was a centrist and Reagan a conservative, but certainly no blood feud or anything like that.

Ted Kennedy never really wanted to be president: Lyndon Johnson noticed it by remarking that he was the one who knew the most about legislating- his natural successor in the Senate. His brothers had the executive talent, he the legislative talent. He didn't have the ego to pretend otherwise.

Bush lived in Texas for nearly all his adult life- he might switch temporarily like Cheney did though.

It has nothing to do with union or non-union, it has to do with ideology and being in tune with their cultural mores, which Ted most definitely was not.
 
Top