Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

John Hinckley Junior's Joyride
John Hinckley Junior's Joyride

It is an age-old adage of American politics that voters really start paying attention after Labor Day and that this is when campaigns are won or lost. True as this is, one nevertheless would not envy the task ahead of the Reagan camp as September rolled around and they headed into the fall campaign season. A few days after winning the nomination in Detroit, Reagan had decamped to the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi, mere miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered by the local sheriff and several Klansmen in 1964 and buried in a river dike - one of the most infamous instances of white supremacist violence in the Civil Rights Era other than the Birmingham church bombing. The fair itself was a common stopping ground for politicians of both parties, particularly to enjoy its famous harness racing and practice a stump speech. During his address, Reagan remarked, "I believe in states' rights," setting off a political firestorm due to the sensitive nature of the county where he uttered it and the context that expression has long held in Southern politics. Even infamously segregationist Senator James Eastland [1] suggested that the prepared remarks were "ill-advised." The campaign, which viewed the South as its major offensive area - Mississippi had, surprisingly, very narrowly voted for Ford and without Carter on the ballot the Deep South seemed like fertile ground for its continuing realignment particularly under the auspices of Reagan's conservatism - was on the back foot immediately, savaged by the Carey campaign and a number of Southern politicians.

Further complicating Reagan's "pivot" strategy for the autumn polls was the dogged campaign against him by Congressman Leo Ryan and his Jonestown Families group, who often appeared at his campaign events (particularly on the West Coast) to demand answers for exactly what Reagan had known about Jim Jones' activities during his time as Governor. Ryan's "one-man war" against the California political establishment was not seen as being particularly decisive in the 1980 campaign - Reagan would carry native California, albeit narrowly - but it was still an annoyance that his campaign was frustrated they had to answer. It was for that reason that as late September arrived, the first of two Presidential debates loomed on the horizon and a chance for Reagan to reset the tone of the campaign and speak more directly to American voters as a contrast to not only Carey but Ford and Nixon as well arrived.

Carey, of course, had little interest in allowing that. The campaign's strategy was after all not to make the vote so much a referendum on Reagan, himself, but on Republican governance in general. "Reagan: More of the Same" was a common refrain on television advertisements in addition to the famous "Had Enough? Vote Carey" bumper sticker and slogan. The first debate was probably the best opportunity for Reagan to undo his substantial, albeit somewhat narrowing, polling deficit, and in that sense it didn't quite work. That is not to say that Reagan did not perform well. An experienced communicator before the camera, as one would expect of an actor, Reagan was polished, disciplined and portrayed himself as "a common-sense, everyday American." Carey was seen to scoff at that remark and chuckle to himself while rolling his eyes, but other than that the debate was, for the most part, calm, courteous and professional. Reagan was regarded by most pundits as having done what he needed to do to not make his situation worse, but there was mixed reactions - typically along partisan or ideological lines - around whether he'd done enough to chance the trajectory of the race and separate himself from the Ford brand. Inside the Reagan camp, advisors were upbeat about Reagan's portrayal of a "cool, collected and capable conservative" - Ed Rollins, pioneering a concept that would soon be known as the "spin room," went out to a gaggle of reporters after the debate and declared, "the Carey campaign and their friends in the liberal media would have you think that Reagan can barely form sentences and is a wild-eyed, crazy man, but we all saw something else today - a true leader who's ready to be President on January 20th and hit the ground running day one, and I think Americans know that!"

Of course, the debate - which did in fact improve Reagan's favorables and polling deficit a bit - was quickly overshadowed by one of the most bizarre news stories of the nascent 1980s. On October 2, 1980, a young man named John Hinckley Junior boarded an Eastern Air Lines flight - mere weeks after its pending merger with Pan Am had been announced - Nashville, Tennessee, bound for Los Angeles. Hinckley was a mentally disturbed individual with delusions of grandeur and an unhealthy obsession with the film Taxi Driver, particularly its young starlet Jodie Foster, and identified with the movie's antihero Travis Bickle. He had been stalking Foster for months, to the point that she'd filed a restraining order against him and pondered hiring a security detail to avoid him. Frustrated that she was not reciprocating his feelings, Hinckley resolved to make a grand, epic display to get her attention: after initially pondering stalking and then assassinating President Gerald Ford, he instead resolved to hijack a plane and refuse to relent until she would speak with him. [2]

At 30,000 feet, Hinckley brandished two pistols, subdued a flight attendant and forced his way into the cockpit, holding both pilot and co-pilot at gunpoint and ordering them to fly to New Haven, Connecticut, where his demand was that Foster board the flight to speak with him. Naturally, Foster refused, and New Haven police attempted to surround the plane - leading to Hinckley demanding the pilots take off and fly to Detroit instead. In the end, Hinckley's "joyride" saw Eastern Flight 722 bounce around the country to six different airports to be refueled as he rattled off increasingly bizarre demands to FAA and FBI officials over the cockpit's communications system, only allowing two elderly passengers with heart conditions to disembark. In the end, dehydrated and exhausted after two days zipping around the country, Hinckley directed the pilots to fly to Los Angeles, their initial destination, where he agreed to surrender in return for a nationally televised interview which the FBI very distinctly did not grant him.

The strange affair dominated and fascinated American media for well over a week, drowning out campaign coverage even as Reagan and Carey both barnstormed the country, and reporters' questions to both candidates focused more on what they thought of one of the oddest American hijackings ever rather than the issues. Neither candidate was particularly keen to comment, and by the time the media circus was over, it was approaching late October - just in time for the anticipated Vice Presidential debate featuring Anne Armstrong as the first female Vice Presidential nominee, but also having burned precious time for Reagan to capture the country's attention...

[1] @peeter made a good point to me in a DM about why Eastland would probably have sought reelection in a 1978 where Carter lost and Ford was in the WH, so a bit of a retcon here. Not that his voting record is that different from Thad Cochran's - these are both very conservative men.
[2] So this is actually true - Hinckley had initially decided he was going to hijack a plane (as was popular in the 70s) and then got cold feet and decided he was going to shoot Carter in Nashville in late 1980, got cold feet again, and finally worked up the courage to be lying in wait for Reagan in Washington DC.
 
I like how you used the two most notorious assassins of the 1980s (Chapman and Hinkley) and totally changed their trajectory. Hinckley hijacks a plane and Chapman shoots up a gas station - major, major butterflies flapping their wings here.
 
Very creative way to weave in Hinkley into the story. Interesting that Reagan wins California narrowly, he’ll at least be able to say he won his home state in a blowout loss unlike McGovern
 
Reagan had decamped to the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi, mere miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered by the local sheriff and several Klansmen in 1964 and buried in a river dike - one of the most infamous instances of white supremacist violence in the Civil Rights Era other than the Birmingham church bombing.
What an oddly specific bit of history to draw fr-
During his address, Reagan remarked, "I believe in states' rights,"
Ah. Whoops!
Even infamously segregationist Senator James Eastland [1] suggested that the prepared remarks were "ill-advised."
Man, if you sound tone deaf to Eastland then you've really got a problem. (Also, the retcon is fine, it's pretty interesting truth be told. Now he and Harry Byrd can both be miserable together.)

And I see my little suggestion regarding Ryan made it in! Yeah I never had any idea that it would cost Reagan California, but irritating the hell out of him certainly would throw him off his game a little.

Hinckley's situation being close to what could have been in OTL is really fascinating. And that rather neatly ties that little loose thread off. The Vice-Presidential debate's going to be really interesting to hear about.
 
The great work continues! I have adjusted my predictions for the 1980 outcome slightly with the inbox ready to go. I wonder what John Anderson, Pete McCloskey and other liberal Republicans are up to? Maybe they endorse Carey?
 
2D6B35C5-1ECF-4FE1-9C6F-8FDFB0665CF3.jpeg

My electoral map prediction for 1980. What do y’all think?
 
I like how you used the two most notorious assassins of the 1980s (Chapman and Hinkley) and totally changed their trajectory. Hinckley hijacks a plane and Chapman shoots up a gas station - major, major butterflies flapping their wings here.
Thanks! Big one of course is a living John Lennon… by some accounts in late 1980 he was recording his best material in years and had learned how to better discern how much of Yoko’s advice he should actually take. It’d be intriguing to see what he achieved if he had lived longer
What an oddly specific bit of history to draw fr-

Ah. Whoops!

Man, if you sound tone deaf to Eastland then you've really got a problem. (Also, the retcon is fine, it's pretty interesting truth be told. Now he and Harry Byrd can both be miserable together.)

And I see my little suggestion regarding Ryan made it in! Yeah I never had any idea that it would cost Reagan California, but irritating the hell out of him certainly would throw him off his game a little.

Hinckley's situation being close to what could have been in OTL is really fascinating. And that rather neatly ties that little loose thread off. The Vice-Presidential debate's going to be really interesting to hear about.
I liked that suggestion; thanks for making it!
The great work continues! I have adjusted my predictions for the 1980 outcome slightly with the inbox ready to go. I wonder what John Anderson, Pete McCloskey and other liberal Republicans are up to? Maybe they endorse Carey?
Yeah they’d probably be “Carey Republicans” I would imagine
View attachment 771181
My electoral map prediction for 1980. What do y’all think?
Probably too bearish on Reagan, tbh
 
View attachment 771181
My electoral map prediction for 1980. What do y’all think?
Reagan is going to lose but it won't be that bad. He'll peel off another southern state or two (I'm counting OK as a southern state for this purpose)

Also, a Democrat hasn't won either Dakota since LBJ. The states are solidly red - don't let the fact that they had Democatic senators/congressmen forever until recently fool you.
 
My electoral map prediction for 1980. What do y’all think?
I think Reagan does better in the West mainly, specifically in the Plains states. He'll probably win at least one more Southern state too but I think he has to perform poorly there to justify future GOP focus in different regions in line with the two decades of 'Southern Alienation.'
 
Last edited:
Probably too bearish on Reagan, tbh
The reason I’m this bearish is that the average person in this America can see abundantly clear that Reagan is going to lose so why would those outside of Reagan conservatives go out to vote for him at a large enough volume to avoid getting blown out? Even with the people who lean moderate/right who don’t want Carey as president or skeptical have seen throughout the election cycle that Reagan is behind a substantial margin and is probably going to lose why would they bother going to the polls to vote for a guy they know is going to lose? Especially since he hasn’t closed Carey’s lead in a real way by October only a month before elections. In a way Carey has the incumbency advantage because he’s been the shoe in winner since he won the nomination however he hasn’t rested on his laurels. People want to be associated with winners and in this world people can see Reagan clearly isn’t winning.
Reagan is going to lose but it won't be that bad. He'll peel off another southern state or two (I'm counting OK as a southern state for this purpose)
The issue for Reagan in the south is as I said above they know he’s going to lose but also southern democrats are going to rally around the national ticket. There will be prominent southern democrats campaigning against him in these states and I don’t think Reagan has the cache in the south to overcome the southern democratic machines that have been rejuvenated since 1976. I gave Reagan Mississippi because Ford played Carter close in 76. Oklahoma I was 50/50 on but I think Carey is the type of democrat they’d like and would vote for in a situation like this.
Also, a Democrat hasn't won either Dakota since LBJ. The states are solidly red - don't let the fact that they had Democatic senators/congressmen forever until recently fool you
South Dakota I’ll admit is a stretch and I’ll cede to you there. However North Dakota I assume because of Ford winning in 76 still has a thriving Democratic-FL Party who are more prominent than IOTL who will organize well for him, Montana was within 10 points in 1976 so I think Carey could snatch it up
 
The reason I’m this bearish is that the average person in this America can see abundantly clear that Reagan is going to lose so why would those outside of Reagan conservatives go out to vote for him at a large enough volume to avoid getting blown out? Even with the people who lean moderate/right who don’t want Carey as president or skeptical have seen throughout the election cycle that Reagan is behind a substantial margin and is probably going to lose why would they bother going to the polls to vote for a guy they know is going to lose? Especially since he hasn’t closed Carey’s lead in a real way by October only a month before elections. In a way Carey has the incumbency advantage because he’s been the shoe in winner since he won the nomination however he hasn’t rested on his laurels. People want to be associated with winners and in this world people can see Reagan clearly isn’t winning.
If your argument rests on voter apathy, you also need to figure in the voters who have seen the streak of Republican victories, even implausible ones like Ford, and assume that Reagan will win somehow so there's no point in voting against him. As you put it, people want to be associated with winners, and the Republican party has been winning for years now. We, the readers, know that Carey will win, but the actual narrative seems to suggest that it's perceived as a close race.
 
even implausible ones like Ford
The election of 76 actually makes my point. Ford was down
by 33 points in July and because of Carter blunders and Ford performing well in debates+ his successful rose garden strategy in the summer he was able to decrease the lead to even on Election Day. In this story Reagan was probably down worse in points than Ford or around the same and as stated in the story hasn’t actually decreased Carey’s lead in any meaningful way and it’s OCTOBER. At this point
We, the readers, know that Carey will win, but the actual narrative seems to suggest that it's perceived as a close race.
But it isn’t perceived as a close race. There hasn’t been anything said in the story or anything that’s happened that suggests Reagan has captured magic in a bottle and has lowered the lead to where the race is close. People watch the news and read newspapers there’s no way that Reagan’s inability to lower Carey’s huge lead hasn’t been a huge point of conversation. Unless something major happens to the negative effect on Carey’s campaign there’s no way that the election isn’t a blowout. By October it’s simply too late to reverse the tide unless Carey does or says something absurdly stupid
I think Reagan does better in the West mainly, specifically in the Plains states. He'll probably win at least one more Southern state too but I think he has to perform poorly there to justify future GOP focus in different regions in line with the two decades of 'Southern Alienation.'
the thing is I think his southern strategy is going to hurt Reagan both in the west and the south. His stunt in Mississippi screams desperate and lessen’s his credibility as a serious candidate. People outside the south are going to see his appeal to the south as screaming of Goldwater 2.0 and people in the south are going to see him as a snake oil salesman who’s just appealing to them to get some electoral votes on his way to getting blown out. There arent any safe states for Reagan at all. Carey is also campaigning and has surrogates going out to states campaigning. The state democratic parties around the country are going hard for him to benefit from his national popularity and lead that combined with the sorry economy that’s happening to me leads me to believe Carey will perform well both in the south and the west
 
Last edited:
My best guess at present for the electoral college. Carey wins 341 EVs to Reagan's 197.
View attachment 771206
Definitely more optimistic for Reagan than mine however I’m not sure that Carey would lose Nevada if he wins Washington and Oregon. Also North Dakota and Montana from my admittedly very surface level knowledge on them have had historically stronger state democratic parties than SD especially at this point so if Carey get’s SD wouldn’t Montana and ND go in the Carey column or at least one of them?
 
This is probably a bit closer to where it’ll land, though a few states will be a tad different
In the chapter that you had the democratic national convention on you mentioned that Reagan was lagging badly in the polls, was his polling in a similar position to what Ford’s was after the conventions in 1976? A little better? A little worse?
 
Top