1980 Reagan Replacement?

It's the boring, predictable answer, but I do think it would be Bush. He had a really well-oiled and disciplined campaign, something which was by no means at all a given in the early years of the primary/caucus dominance system. People nowadays tend to think that Bush was always going to be the 'natural' challenger to Reagan, but the Republican establishment was more favourable to Howard Baker; Bush won out over Baker because he had the much better campaign. It was particularly solid in Iowa, and after Iowa it looked pretty likely he'd win the nomination. I can't see Connally doing what Reagan did.

Fair enough, so then let me change the question a little bit. Let's say the reason that Reagan decided not to run was because Jimmy Carter's first term had been a success (I know, but bear with me here), and he was more popular with the American people. Fewer big name politicians run, including Bush and Dole, thinking it would just tie them to another failed campaign. Does Baker have a shot then (at least as far as the nomination goes), positioning himself as the "middle man" between Republicans and Democrats? And if so, who do you think he'd chose as VP?
 
Last edited:

HKS88345

Banned
Having nearly won the Republican Primary four years earlier, when the 1980 Presidential Election rolled around, Reagan was a shoe-in to take on President Jimmy Carter. He won the Republican Primary that year easily, and then went on to beat Carter soundly in '80.
But let's say Reagan had, for whatever reason, decided not to run. I think Carter losing reelection is a foregone conclusion, so it's safe to say the Republican nominee would win that year, and become President. So who could replace Reagan in 1980?
The most likely candidates to win the nomination are Baker or Anderson.
 
If Ford himself doesn't run for a second non consecutive term (supposedly he considered it but felt he couldn't beat Reagan again, as some of you know I wrote a timeline on Ford running and winning in 80), than the nominee is either Bush (runner up to Reagan OTL) or Baker (Republican leader of the Senate at the time). Dole and Connally might do better than OTL but not much better (Dole's "Democrat Wars" rant really hurt Ford in '76 and Connally wasn't trusted by the GOP and was seen as a traitor by Democrats).
 
Fair enough, so then let me change the question a little bit. Let's say the reason that Reagan decided not to run was because Jimmy Carter's first term had been a success (I know, but bear with me here), and he was more popular with the American people. . .
P&B%2026.11%20Decrease%20Aggregate%20Supply.jpg

And hell, maybe if new Speaker Tip O'Neill had taken the lead more on energy in '77, and let Carter know early on that he's going to get half what he wants on energy policy but no more. And then maybe two weeks later bump that up to 60% . . .

And then when oil prices doubled in 1979, it may not have hurt the economy so much! :)
 
Fair enough, so then let me change the question a little bit. Let's say the reason that Reagan decided not to run was because Jimmy Carter's first term had been a success (I know, but bear with me here), and he was more popular with the American people. Fewer big name politicians run, including Bush and Dole, thinking it would just tie them to another failed campaign. Does Baker have a shot then (at least as far as the nomination goes), positioning himself as the "middle man" between Republicans and Democrats? And if so, who do you think he'd chose as VP?

I'd have to challenge your premise there. A successful 1976 Dem presidency would, I think, result in Reagan running and not the likes of Baker. Remember, Ronnie was already the oldest inaugurated pres in 1981. His time was running out, he can't say 'pass' and stay credible for 1984. That's why you had the likes of Crane floating around in the anticipation of some health crisis - and that was just in 1978/79.
 
Wow, Connally does not come off well there. Especially that MLK quote.
I respectfully disagree.

For the people he was trying to lead at the time, what John said was very much middle-of-the-road. As much as you and I might both wish people had been further ahead.
 
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-truth-about-john-connally-2/

. . . with the uncharitable statement, on learning of King’s murder, that he “contributed much to the chaos, and the strife, and the confusion, and the uncertainty in this country, but he deserved not the fate of assassination.”
Years ago, a friend told me that somewhere close to Tennessee his dad had stopped off to buy a pack of cigarettes from a bowling alley. It came over the bowling center loud speaker that Martin Luther King, Jr., had been shot and killed. And seemingly a clear majority of people there applauded. Yes, really. Holy shit. Too many people seemed to view civil rights like a damn sports competition, us against them.

Please notice, John Connally is saying "deserved not the fate of assassination." He's saying, he didn't help things, but . . . didn't deserve this. And for some people, that's just where they're at and just the challenge they need to hear.

Of course John could have made it a teachable moment in a much better way. And of course he could have been talking about the importance of giving our fellow African-American citizens a fair shake ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm just not sure he could have done that and still been a middle-of-the-road Texas governor.

(and I welcome timelines where baseball integrates just slightly earlier during WWII and integrated military units are the norm maybe five years earlier, and Civil Rights come easily and successfully in the immediate post-war years, say '45-'50 :))
 
Last edited:
The real missed opportunity was that we didn't getting rolling in Texas so that all schools were equally good, whether a rich district, a poor district, or in-between.

For grad level, we could have gotten rolling on police reform. And a good politician could talk about and enact reforms very matter-of-factly, and avoid the charge that you're anti-police or anti-authority. This one's tougher, but the school one could have and should have been done.
 
Of course John could have made it a teachable moment in a much better way. And of course he could have been talking about the importance of giving our fellow African-American citizens a fair shake ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm just not sure he could have done that and still been a middle-of-the-road Texas governor.
He could've said something at least respectful (at the very least, left it at "doesn't deserve fate of assassination"), and not try to pander to the "law and order" crowd at the same time.
 
He could've said something at least respectful . . .
I think we agree much more than we disagree.

Usually the best is something simple and heartfelt such as, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the family." Still working on some of the details, since I'm a good agnostic. :) And just saying 'thoughts' doesn't flow as well.

Things might be different when you're an officeholder.
 
I respectfully disagree.

For the people he was trying to lead at the time, what John said was very much middle-of-the-road. As much as you and I might both wish people had been further ahead.
Key term is "at the time". The electorate and the support that he had to keep in 1968 Texas and the ones he had to win in America in 1980 were very different.
 
Top