Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

A Primary Denouement
A Primary Denouement
May 3rd to June 3rd marked the final primary march for both parties, and the paths both took could not have been more different. For the Democrats, a cluster of primaries at the start of the month represented the last hurrah for Reuben Askew's campaign; on the 3rd he won Texas in a landslide, then three days later narrowly took the Colorado caucuses while sweeping North Carolina, Tennessee and the District of Columbia. Colorado marked his first win outside the South, and though he came a close second in Indiana - dominating counties south of Indianapolis and along the Ohio River - he was unable to keep up with Hugh Carey's big wins in Indianapolis and the more populous industrial north. A week later, Carey won Maryland and Nebraska comfortably, and Askew looked ahead to a daunting map through early June that featured only two more Southern states and substantial delegate hauls in the types of places Carey had already been winning by large margins and, with his campaign running low on funding and the math not impossible but quite difficult, he announced he would suspend his campaign, though he declined to make an endorsement formal. Askew won sympathy delegates the rest of the way, but the writing was on the wall; with the final contests on June 3rd, Hugh Carey wrapped up the Democratic nomination and two days later appeared at a press conference with Askew in Miami where the runner-up stated that "we have had our differences throughout this campaign, certainly, but I can say that Governor Carey will make a tremendous President and he has my full, unequivocal, enthusiastic, two-thumbs-up endorsement." The term "two-thumbs-up endorsement" quickly entered the political lexicon, and Democrats rejoiced at their ticket. In Carey they had a man who spoke to both wings of the party, had credibility as the "man who saved New York," a compelling personal story as a grief-stricken widower running to now rescue his country, and a certain gruff Irish blue-collar appeal in his demeanor. The types of concerns and divisions over the eventual nominee that had plagued the conventions of 1968, 1972 and 1976 were not there - Carey was the man after a positive and considerate primary campaign focused intently on the failings of the last twelve years of Republican governance.

The Republicans were not nearly as fortunate, though they ended June 3rd with a winner. To kick off May, Reagan carried Arizona but frustratingly watched Connally snatch first place in Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas (Reagan would place only third in the first of those); three days later, another split decision emerged, with the flailing Dole taking DC while Connally carried North Carolina and Tennessee and Reagan narrowly won Indiana over Dole. Reagan dominated Nebraska but lost Maryland to Dole on the 13th, and the following week lost Michigan in a landslide (believed to be due to his well-reported support of free trade with Canada worrying Michigan union workers) while blowing out his opponents in Oregon, neighboring his home state. Despite the controversies in El Salvador, Dole seemed to be righting the ship in late May, as a major block of states loomed the last two weeks. Reagan got his reprieve on the 27th, sweeping Idaho, Kentucky and Nevada by wide margins to recapture his front-runner status heading into the last series of contests, bloodied but not beaten. Connally gave an aggressive, angry speech the weekend before the contests in Rhode Island decrying Reagan as "Goldwater with a smile" and suggesting a 1964-style landslide loss if he was the nominee; Reagan's retort: "He would know, he voted for LBJ!" was seen as cleverly reminding Republican partisans of Connally's background as a Texas Democratic hatchet man.

On June 3rd, Reagan decisively won California's primaries, the biggest prize and his home state where his opponents had spent little time campaigning; he also carried New Mexico, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and West Virginia. Connally won only Mississippi while Dole came out ahead in Rhode Island and South Dakota; Reagan would place second in every state he didn't win, a very close second behind Connally in particular. He did not quite have the magic number to win the nomination outright but was very close; the math wasn't quite there for either Connally or Dole to catch up even if one dropped out and endorsed the other. It seemed clear that, despite its fractured nature, the Republican electorate had in the end anointed Reagan, albeit with reservations, a sharp move to the right after twelve years of Nixon and Ford and a divisive, ugly primary campaign between its final three candidates. As the myriad Republican runner-ups debated what to do next, Reagan effectively crowned himself nominee with an enthusiastic speech in Los Angeles thanking his supporters and declaring "on to November and the White House!" The sunny California optimist he so eagerly wanted to play the part of shone through in that moment briefly rather than the gruff old reactionary he had come across as for much of the primary; that he had made it within inches of the nomination four years after being denied barely after firing Sears early in the gauntlet was a remarkable feat.

The first half of the marathon was over for both parties, with their presumptive nominees effectively in place; the even more grueling back half was yet to come...
 
Reagan will need the mother of all October surprises to win after 12 years of Republicans in the White House and a weak though presumably beginning to recover economy.
 
The GOP was probably boned no matter who the standard bearer was but with RR at the helm it could be a bloodletting. Might discredit hard right conservatism in the GOP for a generation.
Like I said before, no matter what, he's fucked. Going hard right and then having to backtrack to wni over moderates doesn't go well. Especially after quite a few misdeeds coming to light.
 
The GOP was probably boned no matter who the standard bearer was but with RR at the helm it could be a bloodletting. Might discredit hard right conservatism in the GOP for a generation.

Considering the headwinds this won't be an equivalent to '64 which did discredit the right of the GOP, Reagan and the wider conservative movement can plausibly argue that no Republican could have won and that ultimately responsibility for the defeat lies with Ford. It's more of a stretch to then say that because Ford was a moderate the 1980 defeat was really a repudiation of consensus politics but I'm sure the National Review will try and there is a large enough body of GOP Primary Voters who will be happy to hear that.
 
Considering the headwinds this won't be an equivalent to '64 which did discredit the right of the GOP, Reagan and the wider conservative movement can plausibly argue that no Republican could have won and that ultimately responsibility for the defeat lies with Ford. It's more of a stretch to then say that because Ford was a moderate the 1980 defeat was really a repudiation of consensus politics but I'm sure the National Review will try and there is a large enough body of GOP Primary Voters who will be happy to hear that.
This is more or less my theory too. The right wing isn’t entirely discredited but is much weakened/blunted
 
This is more or less my theory too. The right wing isn’t entirely discredited but is much weakened/blunted

The GOP is much weakened but is the right wing of the GOP proportionally weaker vis a vis the moderates or not. On one hand you have had a moderate President and won't have 8 years of triumphant Reaganism to change the staffing of the party at a institutional level. On the other hand the Ford Presidency is going to be as toxic for the GOP as the Carter Presidency was for the Democrats in OTL and that's going to taint his whole brand of Republicanism.
 
The GOP is much weakened but is the right wing of the GOP proportionally weaker vis a vis the moderates or not. On one hand you have had a moderate President and won't have 8 years of triumphant Reaganism to change the staffing of the party at a institutional level. On the other hand the Ford Presidency is going to be as toxic for the GOP as the Carter Presidency was for the Democrats in OTL and that's going to taint his whole brand of Republicanism.
Honestly, I would expect many of the Reaganite GOP to support most of the policies Ford would have done, including the Panama Canal thing that really shot the economy down. As such, they would still be quite weakened because they still were open supporters of it. They won't be able to distance themselves from it.

Additionally, due to people's retroactive recollection, they're gonna think back on Nixon too and look at it as a mistake with last capable Republican being Eisenhower and thus Eisenhower would become the image to try and capture for the GOP. Going to the political right of Ford wouldn't work because it'd be more of the same, which is what got them into this mess
 
A Primary Denouement
Excellent work, pal! I'm really happy at how it shaped up. Carey v. Reagan is such a great matchup, election of a lifetime indeed.

What a bloody primary season for the Republicans; the mudslinging and bloodletting will probably leave a many bruised egos and some difficulty in uniting the party.
Carey and Askew are such good potential nominees, I love the two-thumbs-up endorsement. If Askew ain't VP at least I hope he is in the cabinet or snags a Senate seat (if Carey picks Sen. Lawton Chiles as VP, for example). Wonderful, wonderful.

Thank you very much for your hard work. It's very much appreciated.
 
The GOP is much weakened but is the right wing of the GOP proportionally weaker vis a vis the moderates or not. On one hand you have had a moderate President and won't have 8 years of triumphant Reaganism to change the staffing of the party at a institutional level. On the other hand the Ford Presidency is going to be as toxic for the GOP as the Carter Presidency was for the Democrats in OTL and that's going to taint his whole brand of Republicanism.
To be fair, a lot of Ford guys easily slid into roles in the Reagan/Bush admins with little fuss (Jim Baker first and foremost). It was the gang of California advisors Reagan brought with him to DC as outsiders who were a different vibe.
Honestly, I would expect many of the Reaganite GOP to support most of the policies Ford would have done, including the Panama Canal thing that really shot the economy down. As such, they would still be quite weakened because they still were open supporters of it. They won't be able to distance themselves from it.

Additionally, due to people's retroactive recollection, they're gonna think back on Nixon too and look at it as a mistake with last capable Republican being Eisenhower and thus Eisenhower would become the image to try and capture for the GOP. Going to the political right of Ford wouldn't work because it'd be more of the same, which is what got them into this mess
This too. Ford was a fairly orthodox conservative, especially on budget matters; his moderation was more on not playing footsie with the evangelicals, who really burst into the scene thanks in part to Carter. Not that they’ll be a Democratic constituency here but the Falwell types attaching themselves to two losing candidates (I may as well tip my hand that there’s not much way for Reagan to win in these conditions) in a row will have an impact on their perceived viability as a base support group
 
Excellent work, pal! I'm really happy at how it shaped up. Carey v. Reagan is such a great matchup, election of a lifetime indeed.

What a bloody primary season for the Republicans; the mudslinging and bloodletting will probably leave a many bruised egos and some difficulty in uniting the party.
Carey and Askew are such good potential nominees, I love the two-thumbs-up endorsement. If Askew ain't VP at least I hope he is in the cabinet or snags a Senate seat (if Carey picks Sen. Lawton Chiles as VP, for example). Wonderful, wonderful.

Thank you very much for your hard work. It's very much appreciated.
Thank you! We’ll have Carey’s VP nominee shortly when we get into the meat of the campaign
 
To be fair, a lot of Ford guys easily slid into roles in the Reagan/Bush admins with little fuss (Jim Baker first and foremost). It was the gang of California advisors Reagan brought with him to DC as outsiders who were a different vibe.

This too. Ford was a fairly orthodox conservative, especially on budget matters; his moderation was more on not playing footsie with the evangelicals, who really burst into the scene thanks in part to Carter. Not that they’ll be a Democratic constituency here but the Falwell types attaching themselves to two losing candidates (I may as well tip my hand that there’s not much way for Reagan to win in these conditions) in a row will have an impact on their perceived viability as a base support group
Yeah, that makes alot of sense there.

I imagine possibly Carter may be able to help keep some of the evangelicals over with the Dems, even with the social reforms coming, especially if it could sync well in a few areas. Not sure how well that could be applicable though. Though let's be honest; Reagan was never gonna win unless he was doing something blatantly cheating like vote-stuffing XD.
 
Yeah, that makes alot of sense there.

I imagine possibly Carter may be able to help keep some of the evangelicals over with the Dems, even with the social reforms coming, especially if it could sync well in a few areas. Not sure how well that could be applicable though. Though let's be honest; Reagan was never gonna win unless he was doing something blatantly cheating like vote-stuffing XD.
Evangelicals probably won’t be hugely turned on by a gruff Irish Catholic outerborough New Yawker, and top of ticket makes a big difference generally
 
Evangelicals probably won’t be hugely turned on by a gruff Irish Catholic outerborough New Yawker, and top of ticket makes a big difference generally
In general, the realignment would still hold, it's very unlikely that evangelicals will vote for Dems (took Carter with his Southernness, for it to happen momentarily). What will happen is that the Religious Right has a foothold on the Republican Party (the Reaganites, the Pat Robertsons, the Schlaflys, etc.), but there will be more infighting between Nixonian/Fordian conservatives (law&order, orthodox conservatism) and the more overall social reactionarism of the RR, plus the libertarians and the few liberal Republicans left as some blocs that may influence a primary or etc.

It'll probably take some long soul searching in the wilderness to see how the GOP shapes out in the 80s and 90s without a Reagan administration.
 
In general, the realignment would still hold, it's very unlikely that evangelicals will vote for Dems (took Carter with his Southernness, for it to happen momentarily). What will happen is that the Religious Right has a foothold on the Republican Party (the Reaganites, the Pat Robertsons, the Schlaflys, etc.), but there will be more infighting between Nixonian/Fordian conservatives (law&order, orthodox conservatism) and the more overall social reactionarism of the RR, plus the libertarians and the few liberal Republicans left as some blocs that may influence a primary or etc.

It'll probably take some long soul searching in the wilderness to see how the GOP shapes out in the 80s and 90s without a Reagan administration.
My long-range plan is for the GOP to stay more Nixonian, maybe a hair or two more conservative, with the RR boomlet being a product of its moment rather than having the same staying power, and exploring the effects of that
 
My long-range plan is for the GOP to stay more Nixonian, maybe a hair or two more conservative, with the RR boomlet being a product of its moment rather than having the same staying power, and exploring the effects of that
Indeed, indeed. It's strange to think how ingrained the thought/ideology of Reaganism has been in the GOP and overall US political culture.

A competent Dem administration (i.e. not Carter IOTL, bless his heart) with huge margins in Congress can probably get some nice economic stimulus legislation pass and eventually pave the way for Ted Kennedy's healthcare plan. Which already changes the equation once a few years pass. Also unions will remain influential, not as important as before, but not destroyed as IOTL. That may make a NAFTA-type deal more difficult, or at least shift the focus to addressing its negatives. Some soft-neoliberalism is probably gonna seep its way in, like Bob Hawke in Australia IOTL iirc.

This may make it that social or cultural worries like crime or etc. are the main points of difference between the parties (will matter a lot how AIDS is addressed and future Court decisions) while the economic focus of the GOP will probably come in cutting taxes and bureaucracy but not outright "starve the beast" rhetoric. Fairness Doctrine remains, etc.

The dogwhistles probably remain up to a certain point.
 
Top