Ford Wins 76: What Happens in 1980?

I forgot about Udall. Though I'm not honestly sure if he's going to be such a strong candidate here as he was in '76; I don't think you can simply carry across his success in the '76 primaries and assume it would be replicated in '80. '76 is in the slipstream of Watergate, it's a cycle which uniquely favours an outsider-style candidate like Mo Udall. If Carter fails in '76, then I think the internal post-mortem within the Democrats is gong to lead to them looking for a more heavyweight, predictable, establishment figure in '80, and I suspect this would also penalise Hart as well.

I don't disagree if Udall doesn't run in '76. But I think once he has run and placed near the top of the pack, he becomes that heavyweight, establishment figure.
 
So I think we're looking at Udall, Carey, and maybe Scoop Jackson as your top-tier candidates; Hart, Glenn, and possibly Jerry Brown as the "young guns"; Askew and Mondale as the "resume" candidates (a la Bill Richardson and Joe Biden '08) waiting for someone in the top tier to slip up; and then a whole bunch of fringe candidates like Alan Cranston, Fritz Hollings, Sam Nunn, Dolph Briscoe.

Let's go through these candidates:

Udall -- found out he had Parkison's in 1979; likely won't run
Jackson -- fact is, his hawkishness during Vietnam prevents him, with post-McGovern Democrats, from ever winning the nomination
Mondale -- too associated with the "blown" 1976 election; unlikely
Askew -- not likely
Carey -- perhaps

So that leaves the "young guns", Hart, Glenn, and Brown (and the fringe candidates) -- who now look much more like top-tier material:

Hart -- he's got a lot of good things said about him, he's a proto-DLC-er who ran McGovern's campaign in 72, so he's likely on good terms with the "youth" vote; as long as he keeps it in his pants, he'll at least be the frontrunner going in
Glenn -- been in the Senate for about as long Hart, but less accomplished qua Senator; his big leg up is his astronaut persona
Brown -- if, TTL, he can keep a lid on some of his weirder ideas,* while not losing his passion for space and the environment, he'll be quite formidable -- a lot more formidable than he seems to be getting credit for, definitely more so than Glenn, and probably Carey

So I'd say, looking at this list, the real top tier is Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, and maybe Hugh Carey.

*(which butterflies may well help with -- having a shot at the Presidency can do that)
 
Let's go through these candidates:

Udall -- found out he had Parkison's in 1979; likely won't run

How much did anyone really know about Parkinson's in 1979? Udall stayed in Congress for another 12 years (6 more elections!) IOTL, of course. Obviously, a presidential election -- and the burden of actually being president -- is a lot more stressful than running for Congress. I'm not certain this is an automatic disqualifier.

Jackson -- fact is, his hawkishness during Vietnam prevents him, with post-McGovern Democrats, from ever winning the nomination

Jackson was a top-tier candidate in 1976, and ITTL, there's going to be a sizeable section of the Democratic electorate looking to "win at all costs," ideological purity be damned. (The same thing happened IOTL in '92, obviously.)

He might not get the nomination, but he strikes me as a potentially formidable candidate. I could see him not running, though, after having lost twice already.

Mondale -- too associated with the "blown" 1976 election; unlikely

Again, I'm not sure that's an automatic negative; John Edwards' lackluster performance as Kerry's running mate in 2004 (which was a "blown" election to many Democrats) actually elevated him in 2008.

Askew -- not likely

Yeah, there's just something about Reubin Askew that's less than the sum of his parts.

Carey -- perhaps

IOTL, Carey is overshadowed by his successor, Mario Cuomo -- who, IOTL, may eventually be overshadowed by his son. But the more I look at TTL in '78, the more Carey looks like a major potential player.

So that leaves the "young guns", Hart, Glenn, and Brown (and the fringe candidates) -- who now look much more like top-tier material:

Hart -- he's got a lot of good things said about him, he's a proto-DLC-er who ran McGovern's campaign in 72, so he's likely on good terms with the "youth" vote; as long as he keeps it in his pants, he'll at least be the frontrunner going in

As I've said elsewhere, I think the Donna Rice thing is a lot more idiosyncratic than people realize. He wasn't some sex-crazed horndog; he was a politician having a four-month affair who said some stupid things about it when he was at risk of getting caught. That describes, oh, 99.999% of all male politicians, ever.
 
How much did anyone really know about Parkinson's in 1979? Udall stayed in Congress for another 12 years (6 more elections!) IOTL, of course. Obviously, a presidential election -- and the burden of actually being president -- is a lot more stressful than running for Congress. I'm not certain this is an automatic disqualifier.

I'd say it makes him not running just about certain -- though I suppose if he said "to hell with it" and really went after the nod anyway, Mo might pull it off.

Jackson was a top-tier candidate in 1976, and ITTL, there's going to be a sizeable section of the Democratic electorate looking to "win at all costs," ideological purity be damned. (The same thing happened IOTL in '92, obviously.)

He might not get the nomination, but he strikes me as a potentially formidable candidate. I could see him not running, though, after having lost twice already.

I'd say however "formidable" he might manage to be during the primaries, at the end of the day, Scoop just isn't getting the nomination -- though I suppose if he went damning the torpedoes, he'd definitely have an impact.

Again, I'm not sure that's an automatic negative; John Edwards' lackluster performance as Kerry's running mate in 2004 (which was a "blown" election to many Democrats) actually elevated him in 2008.

John Edwards actually had a real outsider, populist niche going for him that Mondale would absolutely lack -- if Dems are looking for an insider in 1980, they'll have other choices.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the Donna Rice thing is a lot more idiosyncratic than people realize. He wasn't some sex-crazed horndog; he was a politician having a four-month affair who said some stupid things about it when he was at risk of getting caught. That describes, oh, 99.999% of all male politicians, ever.

Certainly fair enough -- and in that case, I'd say that just makes Gary Hart all the more likely.

That said though, I do really think Jerry Brown, if he held back in TTL's late 70's a little, would have a real shot, and am actually kind of partial to the idea. "Protect the Earth, serve the people, and explore the universe" would absolutely be a cool slogan...
 
Glenn and Hart were up for thier first reelection in 1980. I don't think they would run for president that year. I say that with all due respect to Jeff Greenfield. I loved his book.
 
I don't disagree if Udall doesn't run in '76. But I think once he has run and placed near the top of the pack, he becomes that heavyweight, establishment figure.

I disagree. Others in both parties have made fairly successful nomination runs which haven't been replicated subsequently, due to cycles having fairly specific circumstances. I think this is the case with Udall. He was a candidate for 1976, and I think the party will want something quite different in 1980. They can find that something different much more readily in people like Mondale or Carey than they can in Udall.
 
Despite what others on this Thread have said about Ted Kennedy being motivated primarily by hatred of Jimmy Carter to actually run in 1980, this would really be Kennedy's best shot at the White House. Unlike 1972 and 1976, there is no incumbent president (Nixon or Ford) seeking re-election and, unlike 1976, Kennedy's own U.S. Senate seat is not up. Kennedy wasn't happy with Carter in 1977-79, but he would not likely be very happy with Ford either. After Carter's narrow 1976 loss to Ford, Kennedy would remain one of the leading Democratic opposition leaders and spokesmen. He would be seen by the media, and in public opinion polls, as the leading Democratic candidate for 1980. At age 48, it would his last chance to run as youthful Kennedy reminiscent of his two brothers and it would be the 20th anniversary of JFK's historic race. By 1980, Chappaquiddick was 10 years behind Ted Kennedy and he had been twice re-elected by Massachussetts voters since that scandal.

In short, other than "saving the Party from Carter", the arguments that Kennedy insiders used to finally convince Ted to run in 1980 would still be there if President Ford remained in office from 1977 to 1981. Plus, after 12 straight years of Republican control of the White House and a bad late 1970s economy, 1980 would a Democratic year. So, I see Ted Kennedy running for the Democratic nomination in 1980 in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I see Ted Kennedy's announcement in early 1979 that he is running for president in 1980 largely clearing the field of the plethora of liberal Democratic candidates who ran in 1972 and 1976, in part, because Kennedy had stayed out. Gov. Jerry Brown of California and perhaps Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona, both of whom ran in 1976, are the exceptions. Senator Walter Mondale also cannot be ruled out, having raised his national name-recognition as Carter's running mate in 1976.

With Carter having shown that a southerner can be nominated, fmr Governor Reubin Askew of Florida (who ran in 1984) runs in 1980 and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas tries again. Senator Scoop Jackson, at age 68, also runs again for the last time (he passed away in 1983 in OTL).

Despite Chappaquiddick, I see Ted Kennedy as the odds-on favorite to win the 1980 Democrat nomination. Like JFK, Ted Kennedy likely picks a southern running mate....perhaps Bentsen or Askew. Gary Hart, Frank Church and John Glenn all seek re-election to the U.S. Senate in 1980.
 
I see Ted Kennedy's announcement in early 1979 that he is running for president in 1980 largely clearing the field of the plethora of liberal Democratic candidates who ran in 1972 and 1976, in part, because Kennedy had stayed out. Gov. Jerry Brown of California and perhaps Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona, both of whom ran in 1976, are the exceptions. Senator Walter Mondale also cannot be ruled out, having raised his national name-recognition as Carter's running mate in 1976.

With Carter having shown that a southerner can be nominated, fmr Governor Reubin Askew of Florida (who ran in 1984) runs in 1980 and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas tries again. Senator Scoop Jackson, at age 68, also runs again for the last time (he passed away in 1983 in OTL).

Despite Chappaquiddick, I see Ted Kennedy as the odds-on favorite to win the 1980 Democrat nomination. Like JFK, Ted Kennedy likely picks a southern running mate....perhaps Bentsen or Askew. Gary Hart, Frank Church and John Glenn all seek re-election to the U.S. Senate in 1980.

I always viewed Teddy Kennedy's run in '80 as a "movement" run, not a serious challenge for the Presidency. By running, Kennedy solidified his status as a liberal icon, without ever having to seriously run for President -- which, I think, he knew would have been disastrous.

Curious why you think otherwise.
 
I always viewed Teddy Kennedy's run in '80 as a "movement" run, not a serious challenge for the Presidency. By running, Kennedy solidified his status as a liberal icon, without ever having to seriously run for President -- which, I think, he knew would have been disastrous.

Curious why you think otherwise.

After Chappaquiddick in 1969, Ted Kennedy could probably still win the Democratic nomination. But I agree that he would not ever be a strong general election candidate given that scandal, his own very liberal issue positions and liberal icon status, and the rightward trend of the national electorate beginning in 1968. Still, if 1980 appeared to be a clearly Democratic year, Kennedy might be pursuaded to take the plunge and really run to win.
 
Top