Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

Reader mode

KingSweden24

Electric Monk said:
The SNL oral history book is pretty good. Lorne didn’t want him for season 2 for fear of SNL becoming the Chevy Show and Chase wanted to be a movie star.
Click to expand...

There’s also the rumored long standing feeling around TV and Hollywood, from my impression, that Chase is a huge PITA to work with (Joel McHale apparently despises him after their time together on Community and his portrayal of Chase in that National Lampoon biopic was not flattering). Not surprised Michaels wanted him out of there
 

CountDVB

John Fredrick Parker said:
First -- this ignores that the Ultimate Establishment Democrat also lost in 1968, and that an Anti-Establishment Democrat (even TTL) still performed better. (And before anyone cries "but what about lately?" -- it's literally one more additional election cycle back, and furthermore...) Are you really saying that not only do Democratic voters have short term memories but that literally the shallowest freaking argument possible -- "You guys have been losing every election so far, except for the one that we lost" -- is going to be enough to overcome actual preferences of the Democratic Primary Voters?

Has it occurred to anyone that, prior to 2000 but following the McGovern-Fraser Reforms, primary voters actually showed a strong preference for anti-establishment candidates outside of a vague sense that they'd be more likely to win elections? Because it strikes me that the New Left, the New Centrists, the Atari Democrats, and pretty much every brand of New Democrat you could think of, actually could all agree on one thing that set them apart from the Establishment -- and which proved fairly key to generating the kind of enthusiasm that gets supporters to show up en masse in a series of primary elections -- and that is that they were adamant about ending the era of the "big deals" being made "behind closed doors". The Democratic Party, they all said, needs to listen to its voters, and that specifically means listening to the Primary Voters and Caucus Goers -- which, naturally enough, said Primary Voters and Caucus Goers were very enthusiastic to hear.

Scoop Jackson, by 1980, has practically become the walking, talking poster boy for the literal anti-thesis of this way of thinking -- he's an avid war hawk at a time when the vast, vast majority of Americans (both Republican and Democrat) have as their one Foreign Policy mantra "No More Vietnams"; he not only enthusiastically supports the Great Society, he is convinced that it doesn't need any major tweaking or rebranding, or even any reconsideration of any possible mistakes (an arrogance that upsets pretty much everybody, from those who susceptible to talk about the "welfare trap" to activists upset at Johnson's pivot toward law and order issues, and so many more besides); and he ran ad hoc as the Establishment Candidate (after Muskie's withdrawal) in the first primary election when primary voters were the ones who got to decide on the nominee, and then tried to the final moment to take their choice away from them.

Now that last point means, at minimum, the New Left is going to hate, hate, hate the man's candidacy -- and before any of you lot scoff that off with "Yeah, but McGovern...", I'm going to stop you right there, because -- this negative feeling is going to find plenty of sympathy for a wide variety of Non-New Left factions in the Party, who (for their own varied ideological reasons) want the Democratic Party candidates and platform to be decided by "the people" (read: the primary participants) and not the networks of older, machine elected men.

So yeah, I think Scoop's going to be a lot less warmly received than a lot of people here assume, and the primary voters less than inclined to throw their support to him aren't going to be especially won over by cries of "BUT MCGOVERN AND CARTER LOST! THAT MEANS IT'S OUR TURN NOW!" But then hey, that's just my analysis.
Click to expand...

I am not an expert of the era I will admit, but I do have to agree here, plus we have to consider what is it that people will be worried about. The economy is one thing to keep in mind and the 1970s energy crisis will be pretty much the defining term. Happened already in 1973 and will most likely happen in 1979 so for the Democrat primaries, talking about the economy and how to fix it will be okay.

I can see the rise of the Atari Democrats in regards to recommending a shift in economy focus and more emphasis on computing while the environmentally conscious folk would demand shifts and investments into renewable srouces. Meanwhile, with the Democrats in an extensively favorable position for 1980, even disregarding how 1976 was a bit of a poisoned chalice, it's about who can whip up the most attention in the primary. Furthermore, there's this to consider:

"The 1976 campaign featured a record number of state primaries and caucuses, and it was the first presidential campaign in which the primary system was dominant. However, most of the Democratic candidates failed to realize the significance of the increased number of primaries, or the importance of creating momentum by winning the early contests. The one candidate who did see the opportunities in the new nominating system was Jimmy Carter, a former state senator and Governor of Georgia. Carter, who was virtually unknown at the national level, would never have gotten the Democratic nomination under the old, boss-dominated nominating system, but given the public disgust with political corruption following Richard Nixon's resignation, Carter realized that his obscurity and "fresh face" could be an asset in the primaries. "

Hence why a more outsider would have a chance, though now in the opposite direction, hence why I suggested Ted Kennedy or Mo Udall. Someone needs to be able to come in from the Democrats to reassure the people, but also have the policies to provide the support in doing so. Carter won by being smart in 1976 regrding the primaries, which remained the same here. As such, the 1980s Democrat primaries will be defined by momentum and establishing prominent sense of personality. The GOP meanwhile from what I am seeing, is showing tears, which will make them more unappealing.

I suspect the 2nd Wave Neocons (like Reagan and his supporters) would peter out as the dominant influence in the party since they would lack successes attributed to them and given the growing frustrations of the voting public to them, I would see the "Rockefeller Republicans" and their supportative successors to thrown the Neocons under the bus.
 

VoidTemplar

John Fredrick Parker said:
First -- this ignores that the Ultimate Establishment Democrat also lost in 1968, and that an Anti-Establishment Democrat (even TTL) still performed better. (And before anyone cries "but what about lately?" -- it's literally one more additional election cycle back, and furthermore...) Are you really saying that not only do Democratic voters have short term memories but that literally the shallowest freaking argument possible -- "You guys have been losing every election so far, except for the one that we lost" -- is going to be enough to overcome actual preferences of the Democratic Primary Voters?

Has it occurred to anyone that, prior to 2000 but following the McGovern-Fraser Reforms, primary voters actually showed a strong preference for anti-establishment candidates outside of a vague sense that they'd be more likely to win elections? Because it strikes me that the New Left, the New Centrists, the Atari Democrats, and pretty much every brand of New Democrat you could think of, actually could all agree on one thing that set them apart from the Establishment -- and which proved fairly key to generating the kind of enthusiasm that gets supporters to show up en masse in a series of primary elections -- and that is that they were adamant about ending the era of the "big deals" being made "behind closed doors". The Democratic Party, they all said, needs to listen to its voters, and that specifically means listening to the Primary Voters and Caucus Goers -- which, naturally enough, said Primary Voters and Caucus Goers were very enthusiastic to hear.

Scoop Jackson, by 1980, has practically become the walking, talking poster boy for the literal anti-thesis of this way of thinking -- he's an avid war hawk at a time when the vast, vast majority of Americans (both Republican and Democrat) have as their one Foreign Policy mantra "No More Vietnams"; he not only enthusiastically supports the Great Society, he is convinced that it doesn't need any major tweaking or rebranding, or even any reconsideration of any possible mistakes (an arrogance that upsets pretty much everybody, from those who susceptible to talk about the "welfare trap" to activists upset at Johnson's pivot toward law and order issues, and so many more besides); and he ran ad hoc as the Establishment Candidate (after Muskie's withdrawal) in the first primary election when primary voters were the ones who got to decide on the nominee, and then tried to the final moment to take their choice away from them.

Now that last point means, at minimum, the New Left is going to hate, hate, hate the man's candidacy -- and before any of you lot scoff that off with "Yeah, but McGovern...", I'm going to stop you right there, because -- this negative feeling is going to find plenty of sympathy for a wide variety of Non-New Left factions in the Party, who (for their own varied ideological reasons) want the Democratic Party candidates and platform to be decided by "the people" (read: the primary participants) and not the networks of older, machine elected men.

So yeah, I think Scoop's going to be a lot less warmly received than a lot of people here assume, and the primary voters less than inclined to throw their support to him aren't going to be especially won over by cries of "BUT MCGOVERN AND CARTER
Click to expand...
I mean, who is going to stop him? Birch Bayh? He has managed to make two large potential support bases, ie. liberals and catholics thoroughly unhappy with his mealy-mouthed positions. Jerry Brown? His supporters in 1980 did him more harm than good. Ted Kennedy? As soon as someone shows up dressed as Aquaman or in a SCUBA suit, he is DOA. He can't even answer the question 'Why are you running?'

Assuming that Scoop runs, and Wallace and Carter doesn't (We know for a fact that Carter won't try another time), Scoop is very well positioned to absorb the Dixiecrat support base, hitting not only on his hawkishness, but also his opposition to bussing. There may be negative feelings aplenty, but there will also be many, many people who will also pull out all the stops to get him into the top slot. The AFL-CIO bussing voters to the polls on the day, the Senators and Governors all lining up to endorse him and so on and so forth.
 

CountDVB

VoidTemplar said:
I mean, who is going to stop him? Birch Bayh? He has managed to make two large potential support bases, ie. liberals and catholics thoroughly unhappy with his mealy-mouthed positions. Jerry Brown? His supporters in 1980 did him more harm than good. Ted Kennedy? As soon as someone shows up dressed as Aquaman or in a SCUBA suit, he is DOA. He can't even answer the question 'Why are you running?'

Assuming that Scoop runs, and Wallace and Carter doesn't (We know for a fact that Carter won't try another time), Scoop is very well positioned to absorb the Dixiecrat support base, hitting not only on his hawkishness, but also his opposition to bussing. There may be negative feelings aplenty, but there will also be many, many people who will also pull out all the stops to get him into the top slot. The AFL-CIO bussing voters to the polls on the day, the Senators and Governors all lining up to endorse him and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

When even your own supporters claim that you lack a certain charisma, that's kinda not a good sign regarding being able to attract supporters and winning elections. Meanwhile, what's gonna be his stance on the economy that would make people choose him over other potential other candidates, especially since there may be some unexpected newcomers ITTL's 1980?

Maybe McGovern could run again in the primaries just to send a message (hell, maybe the Watergate scandal and regret over Nixon along with general GOP frustation would be enough to swing it to him XD)

Someone new (don't if Mondale) or not as seen could come in for this.
 
Last edited:

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
VoidTemplar said:
Jerry Brown? His supporters in 1980 did him more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Kind of a vague criticism for a lead candidate; are you just alluding to “DEM DIRTY HIPPEHS” by chance? Because if you are, I would retort that the median Democratic Voter - far from enthusiastic about the Counterculture, and wary of another McGovern, though they may be - is going to be far more averse to voting for a candidate who still thinks the Vietnam War was a good idea, than they are to a candidate who can appeal to the New Left.
 
1977 Pop Culture
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...Star Wars is just sort of part of the national consciousness today but it's hard to emphasize what a big deal that was when it came out. Nobody had seen anything like it before, it was just on a whole 'nother level. People were lined up around the block, and the TOYS, oh, man, the toys that movie sold..."

    - JJ Abrams interview, "Forty Years of Star Wars" (2017)

    "...and with that Liverpool has the treble! The first English club to secure the honor and the third European side after Celtic and Ajax of Amsterdam... wow, what a season by the Reds! What a season!"

    - BBC Radio Call, Liverpool victory in FA Cup, 1977
     
  • Index
    • Castro Street Riot
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...the gay community was really thrust into the national limelight for the first time largely thanks to the Save Our Children campaign down in Florida but also the way the SFPD overreacted to the two hundred thousand strong march in San Francisco that June after the measure in Miami passed. [1] It really galvanized an activist group that hadn't existed before, and you can sort of see an emerging split emerge on the right. I don't think Ford really cared much about gays one way or another. He was definitely of that generation that looked at them a bit side-eyed but thought the hysteria from the Bryant types was too much. The police beating the snot out of marching gay men on Castro Street and turning water cannons on them was a turning point too; I think after that there was a bit of a siege mentality in the gay community that developed, a more formalized activism..."

    - Former White House Chief of Staff Dick Cheney

    "...Cronkite describing the scene in San Francisco as "like Bull Connor in Birmingham" was a major turning point. Change was very much soon in the air in San Francisco. This is a liberal city, to be compared to Alabama did not go over well with a lot of the people here..."

    - Former Congressman Harvey Milk

    [1] OTL this march was peaceful; butterflies flap their wings a bit, though.

    (San Fran in the 1970s is a really interesting subject, IMO - something we're going to explore with the People's Temple debacle coming up soon, various political butterflies, etc)
     
  • Index
    • Blackout of 1977
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...yeah, the blackout was basically it for Beame. All that looting, vandalism... you could say that was probably the nadir, right on the heels of Ford basically telling the city to fuck off. Yeah, no, I know the headline was "Drop Dead," but still. It really crystallized for the city too that the Republicans hated our guts. Hated the city. Ford in that press conference sounded smug, dismissive... not a good look. And I think in the end that's what helped position us for the primary, because Ed [Koch] was generally on pretty good terms with the administration, and we found our wedge there. The GOP had a good relationship with the Italian community, with some of the white ethnics, and that press conference really blew things our way, even if the primary was razor tight before the runoff..."

    - Senator Andrew Cuomo, Interview for "New York '77: 25 Years Later", ABC News, 2002

    "...if there was one incidence I could take back, one moment where I thought "This is a mistake," it would be the President's press conference after the New York blackout. We all know that the media has a certain... shall we call it, "method" of portraying Republicans. Jerry didn't need to comment on it, but New York and its troubles had been headlines for years. The Seventies were rough in the city. There was heat on the right thanks to restarting the Panama talks, which George did WAY too publicly, the economic package was stagnating as we negotiated with Congress, which Jerry insisted on taking the lead on, as if he were back on the Hill... he hated the way Reagan and other Republicans were criticizing him, that he wasn't getting his honeymoon after winning the election. I think he just wanted to sound tough. I sympathized. But going off the cuff on New York that way, the way he described the city, its leadership, it flew close to basically saying that the people there had brought it on themselves. The media coverage was ugly. A few sentences, that's all I would have said. Not the whole screed, not the testy answers to questions from Dan Rather. That was a landmine we didn't need to step on."

    - Former Vice President Robert Dole, 2007

    "...let President Ford come down here and see the empty buildings in the burnt Bronx while he proposes cutting taxes for his millionaire friends; let President Ford go to the struggling stores owned by working families on Jamaica Avenue, as he talks about deregulating major corporations; let him walk up and down Times Square, and Broadway, and Flatbush Avenue, and tell the people who can't afford to put a roof over their heads or food on the table that it's just too bad! Maybe if he understood this city he'd think different!"

    - Governor Hugh Carey, Cuomo For Mayor Rally, July 2nd, 1977

    "...the whole ordeal really sparked something in Hugh, too. He'd worked with the Ford administration in '75, really thought he was being an honest broker, was working really hard to save the city... and then Ford basically comes out and gives him the finger in public. Hugh took it personally. I'd never seen him like that before."

    - Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "New York '77: 25 Years Later", ABC News, 2002
     
  • Index
    • Ogaden War - Summer 1977
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...the first thrust of the Somali Army took almost the entire Ogaden by the end of July, keeping the Ethiopians on their backheels despite Soviet withdrawal of support for Somalia in favor of the Marxist-Leninist Derg. The superior armaments and training of the Somalis quickly overmatched the opponents and put the invaders in control of much of their target territory, with Dire Dawa the main objective. After two days of vicious fighting, the SNA had seized the strategic crossroads into the Ogaden, second largest military airport and critical Ethiopian rail line to the Red Sea. It seemed, at that point, that the war was effectively over..."

    - Cold War, Dark Continent: African Between the Superpowers

    "...the Russians stayed out of Ethiopia directly besides military advisors and arms shipments, but 15,000 of Castro's soldiers were on the ground there, and, well, never give up a chance to thumb the nose at Fidel. Somalia was kind of socialist, or at least had been a Soviet friend, but there was a vacuum of support there and after Vietnam we saw an opportunity to give the Soviets a small bloody nose. Not a big one, but there's socialist and there's SOCIALIST, and if Somalia was going to be the former... well, like I said. There was an opportunity there. Could Barre play ball or not? That was what the CIA went to Mogadishu to find out after Dire Dawa. We had a window of opportunity to penetrate Soviet influence in East Africa with rainy season starting and the Somalis unlikely to keep their blitz up deep into the fall..."

    - Donald Rumsfeld: The Unknown Known
     
  • Index
    • Failed Coup in Pakistan
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...Operation 'Fair Play' may well have succeeded had Bhutto and the PNA not announced a compromise agreement for fresh elections only the day before it was launched. [1] The decision turned just enough units of the military against intervention that when Zia attempted his overthrow, rival battalions began shooting at each other and Islamabad - as well as Lahore and Karachi - descended into chaos. Bhutto nearly fled to Iran, being persuaded to stay only as such a move would surely help Zia's cause. It was Zia in the end who was forced to flee, first to Oman and then to London, as mass protests forced the army back in the barracks. Street violence surged across Pakistan. Bhutto, of course, angrily denounced the coup plotters and demanded the ISI work immediately to find links between Zia and foreign powers who may have given him a "nudge"..."

    - Pakistan and Bhutto

    "...Bhutto got along great with Nixon but it was a little less chummy with Ford. He was a socialist, though a moderate one, and he was drifting out of our sphere a bit, and he wanted the bomb. Kissinger had told him that he'd just have to deal with India going nuclear and Bhutto didn't love that, exactly. Of course, George, as he is, had been friendly when he visited Lahore just a month before the coup attempt, but it was obvious that the tied-at-the-hip era was over and George pushed hard for Bhutto to give up his nuclear ambitions. Staring down a coup like that only intensified Pakistan's desires, I'm afraid. Bhutto was on a mission now, and he strongly suspected British or American involvement in the attempts to overthrow him. Nothing further from the truth, we never tried, not once, but he was paranoid after that..."

    - Brent Scowcroft, Interview with India Times

    "...the snap elections in September of 1977 resulted in the PPP being returned with a majority, albeit a much smaller one than the suspicious landslide that had triggered the mass unrest. Electoral violence still plagued the country, but the crisis seemed to have mostly passed, and Bhutto could return his attention to trying to end Pakistan's economic and social stagnation..."

    - South Asia and the Cold War

    [1] Of course in OTL Bhutto didn't get the announcement out in time.
     
  • Index

    • CountDVB

    Well, this is getting quite interesting. Ford PO alot of people and the LGTBQ community now is bolstering themselves. I imagine the large overreaction and attack on them would actually strike a chord with alot of civil rights activists here and thus see a greater cooperation there. Plus, given the police brutality history, make them more sympathetic.
     

    John Fredrick Parker

    Donor
    KingSweden24 said:
    "...Star Wars is just sort of part of the national consciousness today but it's hard to emphasize what a big deal that was when it came out. Nobody had seen anything like it before, it was just on a whole 'nother level. People were lined up around the block, and the TOYS, oh, man, the toys that movie sold..."
    Click to expand...
    Trying to figure what this says or implies about how Star Wars, or its legacy, is different TTL.
     

    Rfl23

    John Fredrick Parker said:
    TTL!Bush and co might be less antsy if they were to simply remember that the reason the Brtish/French/Israeli intervention in the Suez ended up being such a disaster was because of the economic pressure by... the United States.

    As to comparisons with Vietnam -- well, from a purely operational perspective, geography alone can guarantee that Torrijos' forces in Panama simply don't have the supply lines to be capable of posing anything remotely resembling the persistent threat that the Vietcong posed; whether the blowback (political, geopolitical, and general) would be enough to kill the operation before it was finished or dissuade Ford from trying to forcefully keep the Canal, that's another matter entirely.

    One thing does occur to me -- if Ford is re-elected in (early November) 1976, could that have some effect on Chevy Chase's decision to leave SNL? I realize he had other reasons for leaving around this time -- he asserted later it was mainly because he finance didn't want to move to New York -- but it strikes me as a least plausible that the prospect of spending more time as the nation's foremost impressionist-lampooner of the president on national television could be enough to convince him to stick around longer.

    If he did, that would have implications in its own right -- for example, Bill Murray IOTL was brought on as a full SNL cast member specifically to replace Chevy.
    Click to expand...
    That would be interesting to see
     
    Elvis Hits Rock Bottom
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...doctors would later marvel that Elvis Presley survived his August 16, 1977 heart attack, considering the years of prescription drug abuse, his enlarged heart, and diabetes. One doctor even quipped, "He's a Charles II of music" [1]. Nevertheless, survive he did, and the near death experience dramatically changed the 42-year old icon's life..."

    - The Seventies in Pop Culture

    [1] A joke designed almost exclusively for a history forum ;) for those not in the know, there's a famous line about Charles "the Bewitched" of Spain that he "repeatedly baffled Christendom with his continued survival."
     
  • Index
    • Trident Plan
  • Index

    • KingSweden24

    "...the tax cuts hadn't materialized, but before the August recess Ford signed legislation creating a federal Department of Energy and acquiesced to O'Neill's request to break the Transportation Reform Act into three components, which would make each piece easier to negotiate and ratify separately rather than get bogged down as many omnibus acts did. The first piece, the Cannon Airline Reform Act, steamed ahead of the other ones, looking to be on pace for passage when Congress returned in September. Negative news seemed to follow Ford into the fall, though, as despite unemployment declining, inflation continued to increase, and the announcement of steel plant closures in Youngstown led to protests erupting in Northeast Ohio..."

    - The Ford Years

    "...Ford's continued insistence on tax cuts and the stubbornness of the "tag team" of Simon and Miller at Treasury and the Fed was largely blamed for the stagnant wage growth and deepening inflation, and by the end of September Ford's public opinion polling had sunk back into the mid to low 40s. The honeymoon, which had barely existed after the controversial 1976 election as it was, had completely evaporated. His unpopularity began to have impacts outside of the White House, too; it would influence the invisible primary within the Democratic Party for the 1980 race, and in the New York mayoral race the liberal candidate, Mario Cuomo, narrowly beat the more conservative Congressman Ed Koch in the runoff, and skated to a landslide victory that November..."

    - Resurgent: The Revitalization and Rebirth of American Liberalism
     
  • Index
    • Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top