Ford/Rhodes '76

Just a thought that crossed my mind as I'm laying here trying to sleep. James A. Rhodes was reelected governor of Ohio in 1974, certainly a bad year for most Republicans. In 1975 he set out on his third term as governor (In Ohio a governor can be elected to no more than two consecutive terms, but can run for as many non-consecutive terms as he can win). In his previous tenure, Governor Rhodes slashed state spending to turn a deficit of more than $80,000,000 into a surplus by cutting spending by almost 10 percent in every agency as well as laying off 4,000 government employees. He had overseen a robust expansion to Ohio's economy; expanded the state's infrastructure by adding hundreds of miles of highways and promoting the construction of local airports throughout the state; and he successfully cast himself as a moderate on the race issue by funding student loans and job skill training aimed primarily at African-Americans.

He is not without his weaknesses, however. He was believed to be linked to organized crime (an unproven accusation), had not completed his college education, was only barely able to win reelection in 1974, the tendency to use the national guard as a tool to control race riots across the state, and there are many other scandalous things that might creep up in an election. The big one, though, is his decision to send the National Guard onto Kent State's campus in 1970, his speech the day beforehand that claimed the agitators were worse than Nazi Brownshirts or Soviets, and what seemed like a lack of remorse for the resulting deaths.

So does Rhodes add anything to the ticket? His reputation as a pragmatic conservative who has helped his state achieve job creation adds a compelling narrative for the Ford campaign being dragged down by stagflation and the faltering economy. Yet his national reputation is tarnished by the events at Kent State and he may be too Nixonian for many people's liking. Nevertheless, given that Dole was little help to Ford either, it is possible that he might give the Republican ticket a little umph to help them win.

So the point:

Given that Ford lost Ohio, and thus the election, by approximately 11,000 votes, is it possible that with Rhodes on the bottom of the ticket Ford is able swing the state and achieve victory? Or does the man many see as responsible for Kent State scuttle the campaign's hopes of any success?
 
The famous quip about the Ford-Dole ticket is that it would run well--all the way from Lansing to Topeka (implying it had little breadth geographically, violating a central tenet of the conventional wisdom of choosing a running mate of the time). Here, you may have shortened that distance further, from Lansing to Columbus.

The real question here is how this choice plays differently than the choice of Dole. At the time, Dole's reputation was not as the pragmatic master of the Senate he cultivated through the eighties and early nineties. Dole was seen as more or less a conservative in the Reagan mold, and I've read that language used to describe him in several contemporary accounts of the 1976 election (which in terms of pure drama, was really one of the all time greats). If memories of Kent State would play against the governor nationally, then yes, it could dislodge other states and cost Ford as much as it gains him. But on the other hand, yes, I think having a state's incumbent governor is generally a positive, and worth at least 11,000 votes in a state Ohio's size.

(By the way, I'm certainly a believer of the old school doctrine with respect to running mates, in which your choice is designed to secure the electoral votes of one of the states most likely to lay astride that 270 vote threshold. Why Gore did not pick Graham, or Kerry Gephardt, or McCain Ridge, I'll never understand. But the fact that they didn't had a lot do with each man not becoming president.)

In any case, your idea might very well be right, but it seems if you want to do a timeline involving a Ford victory, there's no end to the ways you could do it. You could have Ford sidestep the single biggest decision that damaged him politically, and refuse to pardon Nixon. You could have Ford, in a Macchiavellian masterstroke, appoint Reagan his vice-president instead of Rockefeller and thus neutralize him. You could change any of the millions of small incidental factors that contributed to Jimmy Carter becoming the Democratic presidential nominee in the most crowded Democratic field ever, and have any of the following: (1) an unviable Democratic nominee, (2) one who would divide the party hopelessly, or (3) a brokered convention creating an awful spectacle a la 1968. You could even have Ford face George Wallace in the general election. Or Ted Kennedy (who would be unlikely to bring the south back to the Democrats the way Carter did, and have all the weaknesses in national electoral politics that would only be discovered in that awful 1980 campaign).

I suppose what I'm saying is, there is no end to the points of departure for a Ford victory in 1976.

And of course how the ensuing four years play out is fascinating: you could have similar events to the Carter administration, and then the Democrats maximize Republican disarray in a mirror image of the Republicans, and you have a 1980 Democratic landslide. Or, you can have similar events to the Carter administration, and then theorize that Reagan can make the case in 1980 that he is different enough from Ford that the Republican brand deserves another chance under him. Or, more tantalizingly, you can theorize that in 1977-1981 Ford would have made a better decision than Carter with respect to something important, or that he would have faced lesser challenges, or that he facing some type of real monumental threat like a Soviet/Iranian crisis would have exhibited some sort of Churchillian mettle that would have made him a legend.

Like I say, there's no end to where you could go with this. I wouldn't get hung up too much with Rhodes. For instance, a Ford-Bush ticket could go very well.
 
Upon further review I made an error when I stated that losing Ohio cost Ford the election. Even with Ohio in his camp he would have achieved only 265 EVs, meaning Carter would still win the election. I was doing some kind of math wrong in my head.

Also, I agree that there were several things Ford might have done to win the election, this is just the one I've zeroed in on at the moment.

It's tough to say whether Rhodes would have helped in many other states outside of Ohio, but maybe without Dole's gaffes on the campaign trail ("Democratic wars" etc.) he could have prevented alienating some voters. A campaign promise of a commission spearheaded by a VP Rhodes on the subject of the economy and job creation would maybe help bring more people into the Republican camp.

I can't see things changing too much if the ticket loses, except for maybe Dole's career which is going to change either way.

If the ticket wins, however, and the Ford administration is able to reach 1980 with even a decent amount of popular appeal, what would happen to Rhodes? He's going to be 71 that year, which normally might disqualify his bid for the party's nomination. In 1980, however, the GOP nominated Ronald Reagan who was only a year and a half younger than Rhodes, so I doubt this is going to be too much of an issue. If the Ford administration manages to be competent and better handle, or avoid altogether, the crises of the Carter administration and, maybe, keep ahead of public perception, I can see Rhodes, as ambitious a man as there ever was, making a run for the party's nomination himself. This could set the stage for what would essentially be Reagan v. Ford Pt. II.

If Carter lost in 1976, the Democrats likely would experience an invigorated liberal base, as like what happened even WITH Carter IOTL. Without Carter's presence as the incumbent, Ted Kennedy likely is the nominee. After 12 years of Republicans in the executive, it is going to be an interesting election.

So, who wins the Republican Primary that year? Who do they select as a runningmate? Am I right to assume that Kennedy wins the Democratic nomination, and, if so who goes on the bottom of his ticket? Who would eventually win in the general?
 
Top