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: