Discussion: Ted Kennedy '76?

In True Compass, he says that Chap & family issues made it a non-starter. Let's say that the family issues are resolved and he decides to "damn the torpedoes" on Chap. EMK can probably beat Ford but I don't think he could beat Reagan. Like Nixon in '60, this could line him up to run against Schweiker or Bush in '84.
 
It would certainly be a nice patern. Every 8 years, a Kennedy must run for President.:)

I suppose he could at least get the nomination, but it really depends on how big a deal Chap is to Americans for him to get the Presidency.
 
I see ideology as the main obstacle for Ted- which was an asset, not a hindrance, for his brothers IOTL. That will allow Carter to sneak up the middle as the SoDem/proto-DLC candidate, which is what they need, albeit more experienced and worldly than Carter. There aren't any candidates who fit that bill (Scoop Jackson, the most qualified, is a flaming New Dealer), unfortunately for the Democratic Party.
 
It would certainly be a nice patern. Every 8 years, a Kennedy must run for President.:)

I suppose he could at least get the nomination, but it really depends on how big a deal Chap is to Americans for him to get the Presidency.

That was a problem IOTL as we saw in the Mudd interview. He claims in True Compass he gave rambling answers because Mudd asked about Joan, but that's baloney. Family objections I know how to fix, but Chap is another issue. Looked at from a certain angle (yes, my own)- it is criminal negligence causing death. His main problem is that he does not have a cause or a base constituency. Liberals go to Mo Udall, Ted is ideological anathema in the South, WWC voters go to Scoop Jackson, and suburbanites stick with the DLC Dem Carter. WWC voters were a natural constituency for his brothers, but Ted is too liberal for them, both economically and socioculturally. The name only goes so far, as even Hillary, a DLC Dem herself, found out 2 years ago.
 
Ted would never accept second place, nor would Carter. They didn't get along well IOTL, which says something about Carter because Ted was the most congenial of all the brothers (RFK was also, but you had to be allowed through the emotional gates so to speak- not easy but admittance was for life) - he was friends with LBJ during The Feud. If they did, it would not be a pleasant Veepship for Carter. Or he can nominate Arkansas Gov. Dale Bumpers, one of Clinton's mentors- also a DLC Southerner. I still doubt whether he could beat Reagan, again coming down to ideology. Ted cannot win the industrial states- almost as much because of sociocultural issues as economic ones.
 
This is Probably ASB, but could you have a Kennedy-Carter, or Carter-Kennedy ticket?
Not ASB, but highly unlikely, though I could see an attempt to balance the ticket. It won't work though; if Carter wants a liberal running mate, there's Mo Udall, if he wants to nominate someone like him, Kennedy's not, and that's not even getting started on personal and ideological antipathy for each other...
 
Among the many ironies here is that RFK gave his quiet financial backing to Carter in the '66 gubernatorial race IOTL. How the times have changed...
 
This scenario would most lkely lead to republicans winning the white house (wether in is Regan or Ford) Though the dems being divided would open up alot of opportunitites for other candidates

All plausible candidates Jerry Brown
George Wallace
morris Udall
Henry M Jackson
Frank Church
Robert Byrd
Fred Haris
Birch Bayh
Terry Sanford
Jimmy Carter

My favorite ticket is a Jerry Brown/Henry M Jackson

Another question- could Jerry Brown win the nomination in 1980, and could he beat or at least compete with regan?
 
No one can beat Reagan in '80, certainly not Jerry Brown. Brown could win the nomination if he becomes the leader of a unified anti-Carter movement. Anti-(insert candidate) coalitions rarely work out for Democrats: it was tried by everyone (RFK-HHH v. Gene or Gene-HHH v. RFK) in '68, against McGovern in '72, Carter in '76, etc. It fails because of egos, some candidates being more viable than others, and ideology. In Brown's case it was mostly ego.
 
I was probably going to write a TL on this in the future, as the EMK Kexpert here.

A few thoughts:

About Jimmy Carter: Very likely the strongest primary candidate even if Kennedy runs - keep in mind that the people wanted a Watergate outsider. That doesn't mean he will win - Kennedy is a strong candidate. And also, in True Compass, it was pretty clear Kennedy and Carter disliked each other - they would never be on the same ticket.

Kennedy vs. Ford: I agree with RB - Kennedy could very well defeat Ford. It really all depends on whether Kennedy plays his cards right.

Kennedy vs. Reagan: Somewhat agreed with RB, somewhat not. It's pretty hard to win with a thing like Chappaquiddick on your record, but I'm not going to say it's impossible for Kennedy to defeat Reagan. Again, Kennedy would need to play his cards right, but even more so against Reagan than Ford.
 
Ted admits himself that his chances of defeating Reagan in either '80 or '84 IOTL were minimal to non-existent. As I said, partially Chap, partially ideology. Chap can be massaged to a degree, ideology cannot. If he beats Ford then he's a sitting duck for Reagan in '80 because Ted's ideology won't help the economy, and he will be portrayed as a national security dove.
 
So Reagan beats Kennedy in '76- does Reagan avoid the troubles that plagued Carter?- does he get reelected in 1980? Even if Reagan has coattails, the Dems are still gonna have at least 55 senators(unless Reagan is catalyst for a truly incredible landslide. Even then I can't see the Republicans winning a majority in the senate).

I've got a feeling that Reagan dodged a bullet by not winning is '76. Certainly he would have been a better president then Carter, but 1980 would have been a hard year even for a ressurected George Washington or Lincoln:p.

And even if he had overcome the obstacles Carter failed to deal with and won 1980, his presidency wouldn't have been such a conservative milestone, purely because of the strong Democratic position in congress- contrast that with their position in real history when he won in 1980, where the Republicans had gained a majority of 53 in the senate.
 
Yes, at least on foreign policy, Reagan will avoid Carter's mistakes. Domestically, it depends how long before the economy begins to uptick. Even a late uptick can sink you, as happened to GHWB in '92. So if the economy starts to roar back by 1979 Reagan is safe. Past Q1 1980 it will be too late, as happened to Bush I. Carter was also in a bad place of having a DLC president battling a New Dealer Congress, particularly Tip O'Neill and Ted Kennedy. Kennedy himself admits that his challenge to Carter was just as much ideological as personal- and his political comments about Clinton indicate that he never made peace with that wing of the party. Reagan won't have that problem, since the GOP will be looking for a choice, not an echo, as was occurring across the pond in the UK at the time.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
So Reagan beats Kennedy in '76- does Reagan avoid the troubles that plagued Carter?- does he get reelected in 1980? Even if Reagan has coattails, the Dems are still gonna have at least 55 senators(unless Reagan is catalyst for a truly incredible landslide. Even then I can't see the Republicans winning a majority in the senate).

I've got a feeling that Reagan dodged a bullet by not winning is '76. Certainly he would have been a better president then Carter, but 1980 would have been a hard year even for a ressurected George Washington or Lincoln:p.

And even if he had overcome the obstacles Carter failed to deal with and won 1980, his presidency wouldn't have been such a conservative milestone, purely because of the strong Democratic position in congress- contrast that with their position in real history when he won in 1980, where the Republicans had gained a majority of 53 in the senate.
Dealing with the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the final blow for Carter in 80. Under Reagan there would be questions about whether or not the Iranian Revolution would be successful, or of a different character than OTL. i have great difficulty seeing Reagan supporting the Iranian Revolution over the Shah.

The Iranians certainly were not crazy enough to push Ronald Reagan to the degree that they pushed Jimmy Carter. Reagan would not have isolated himself in the Rose Garden as did Carter during the crisis. Military intervention would have almost been guaranteed to occur had the crisis even happened under Reagan's watch, and it wouldn't have been an almost impossible operation under a twice passed over for promotion Special Operations Colonel with a wet dream about an SAS type of organization.

If the Iranian hostage crisis does not occur, it butterflies away the gasoline shortages of 79, and much of the resulting damage to the economy.
 
Top