in 1980, Bush follows up Iowa win with New Hamshire victory?

68595.jpg


https://www.deseretnews.com/top/356...-who-won-the-nomination-from-1980-to-now.html

People tend to forget, but Bush did win the Iowa Caucus Jan. 21, 1980. (in part because Reagan skipped a candidates’ forum on advice of his campaign manager)

1) What kind of president would Bush have been from ‘81 to ‘85?, and

2) How might Reagan come back from the loss of the first two contests?
 
Well they say that Bush would make more moderate decisions than Reagan, especially cutting taxes but not by as much as Reagan did OTL. Bush would also probably be more of an expert at foreign policy than Reagan was in OTL.

Reagan could probably come back from the loss of the first two contests by turning up the heat on the populist message and make it seem the first two contests were determined by the Establishment?
 
After New Hampshire came Massachusetts (which Bush also won IOTL) and Vermont, which John Anderson actually almost won. If a stronger Bush swings about 1% or more from Reagan, Anderson would carry it. A big bump for Bush could give Vermont to him instead (I can see this happening if moderates abandon Anderson in favor of the more electable Bush as a real firewall against Reagan).

After that you get a series of southern states where Reagan was very strong. Does he still carry them with no victories up to that point? Even if he does, isn't this pretty easy to spin as bad press- a candidate propagating a north-south divide? And he's got a Connolly to deal with, who southern conservatives might turn to if Reagan's looking weak.

These are his obstacles, and it would go against a lot of post-1976 conventional wisdom to have him make a comeback after losing the first four contests. But if he can hold onto his base in those four southern states in early March, then it's certainly still a contest.

Anderson's point of departure from the race becomes kind of crucial. Obviously his primary voters are going to flock to Bush, and that plus momentum is probably going to give Bush the edge. But if Anderson sticks around until mid-April like IOTL, a lot of those big states could see a split electorate that favors Reagan with his conservative plurality. I think a better-performing Bush pushes Anderson out earlier, even if he does win in Vermont. In the face of a surging Reagan it's easy for anti-Reagan Republicans to protest, but I don't know if they'll be so ride-or-die for him with a viable Bush standing up for the middle ground.
 
Well they say that Bush would make more moderate decisions than Reagan, especially cutting taxes but not by as much as Reagan did OTL. . .
I like moderate.

Reagan + Republicans and Dixiecrats in House + Republican majority in Senate enacted big tax cut in Aug. ‘81. And a big tax hike in ‘82 (this second part often forgotten). Maybe the combo was too herky-jerky and contributing factor to 1982 recession.

But then,

modern economies are almost biologically complex; all conclusions tentative.
 
Last edited:
@Expat

I wonder if John Anderson can get more traction with what I might call his “hard medicine” of a 50 cent tax per gallon of gas?

And people forget the second part of what he called his 50-50 plan, which was a 50% reduction in social security tax (up to certain amount?) so that citizens on a tight budget won’t be hit so hard by the increase of gas tax. But . . . how’s that good for the actuarial health of social security?
 
@Expat

I wonder if John Anderson can get more traction with what I might call his “hard medicine” of a 50 cent tax per gallon of gas?

And people forget the second part of what he called his 50-50 plan, which was a 50% reduction in social security tax (up to certain amount?) so that citizens on a tight budget won’t be hit so hard by the increase of gas tax. But . . . how’s that good for the actuarial health of social security?

I think the only way for Anderson to get much more traction here is if Bush decides to take a step to the right. It's something he might do, if it looks like a chunk of Reagan supporters are ready to bail if he's willing to compromise a little on policy.

Still, there was already a lot more room between Anderson and Bush than Reagan and Bush. The number of Bush-supporting moderates turned off enough by him moving to the right to make that leap over to Anderson is going to be limited.

Perhaps a bigger bump comes from reduced enthusiasm for the rest of the field. Reaganites fail to get on the bandwagon and maybe fail to show up at the polls altogether. And if Bush looks like a sure thing, his turnout will be affected, leading to a relatively higher percentage for Anderson (whose quixotic campaign is not going to have a similar enthusiasm problem).

But in terms of raw numbers in a GOP primary with the electorate and expectations of roughly OTL 1980, I don't think his ideas are going to get him much further than OTL.

As to his 50-50 plan, I think you raise a good question, and it's probably not any better than neutral for the health of social security (and likely worse than neutral). The final wording of the bill would dictate a lot. If this is all sunseted, then people just end up feeling like they're being given a tax increase when the original rates kick in. Leads to bad feelings about the cost of social security. If it doesn't sunset and congress has to explicitly fiddle with it at the end of the "emergency," well they're going to be tempted to fuss with the exact rates. Could end up weakening social security at that point for real.
 
The Reagan campaign in 1980 while raising large sums of money mostly from small donors was bleeding cash at a fast rate which is why the first campaign manager John Sears was fired.
Reagan's strategy was to promote the air of inevitably and if he lost NH right after losing Iowa then that could lead to the money drying up like it did in 1976 but unlike 76 he probably couldn't come back to make a race of it.
Bush was a stronger General Election candidate than Reagan and there would have been the "Big Mo" going to Bush.
 
It's not like New Hampshire was close in OTL: Reagan 50, Bush 23, Baker 13, Anderson, 10, Connally 2, Crane 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries Even in the very unlikely event that Baker, Anderson, and Connally had all withdrawn and all their votes had gone to Bush, Reagan would still have won!

No doubt "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green" helped Reagan but it was not essential for his victory in NH.

Yes, I did once express a contrary view in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-be-his-running-mate.442181/#post-16908503 but the premise there (that Reagan agrees to a pure one-on-one debate and that Bush demolishes him there) is pretty unlikely, and even if it happened I doubt that Bush would have won the primary. Even if excluded from the debate, the other candidates would still be around to split the moderate vote, while the Union Leader was rallying the Right behind Reagan.
 
It's not like New Hampshire was close in OTL: Reagan 50, Bush 23, Baker 13, Anderson, 10, Connally 2, Crane 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries Even in the very unlikely event that Baker, Anderson, and Connally had all withdrawn and all their votes had gone to Bush, Reagan would still have won!

No doubt "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green" helped Reagan but it was not essential for his victory in NH.

Yes, I did once express a contrary view in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-to-be-his-running-mate.442181/#post-16908503 but the premise there (that Reagan agrees to a pure one-on-one debate and that Bush demolishes him there) is pretty unlikely, and even if it happened I doubt that Bush would have won the primary. Even if excluded from the debate, the other candidates would still be around to split the moderate vote, while the Union Leader was rallying the Right behind Reagan.

Yeah, I just breezed past it (because that's usually what you do with any reasonable what-if: you accept it at face value for the purposes of entertainment) but it's worth pointing out that we do need to do *something* to have Reagan lose in New Hampshire. A gaff, a health scare, something.
 
It's not like New Hampshire was close in OTL: Reagan 50, Bush 23, Baker 13, Anderson, 10, Connally 2, Crane 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries Even in the very unlikely event that Baker, Anderson, and Connally had all withdrawn and all their votes had gone to Bush, Reagan would still have won!

No doubt "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green" helped Reagan but it was not essential for his victory in NH.
. . .
Yeah, I just breezed past it (because that's usually what you do with any reasonable what-if: you accept it at face value for the purposes of entertainment) but it's worth pointing out that we do need to do *something* to have Reagan lose in New Hampshire. A gaff, a health scare, something.
Yes, sometimes we have to accept a premise!

But okay, I’ll play ball on New Hampshire. The conflict at the debate, Reagan started to move toward someone, and then settled himself down. I encourage people to watch the video. Now, if there had been a physical confrontation, some people will like that. But a lot of people won’t.

And then there’s Social Security. James Baker, who became his chief-of-staff for the first term, believed Social Security to be Reagan’s Achilles heel.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7...ity as Ronald Reagan's Achilles heel”&f=false
 
John Sears, and Lake, and Black, were the political pros Reagan brought in to run the campaign. First they drove Lyn Nofziger out of the campaign.

And then there was a showdown on Nov. 26, 1979, in which Reagan was told it was either the three of them or Mike Deaver. Mike said, no, Governor, you don’t need to make that choice, and said that he would leave voluntarily.

The quote from Reagan:

“The biggest man here just left the room,” he said. “He was wiling to accommodate and compromise and you bastards wouldn’t.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=n...ompromise and you bastards wouldn't."&f=false

———————————

A far from perfect campaign!
 
Yeah, I just breezed past it (because that's usually what you do with any reasonable what-if: you accept it at face value for the purposes of entertainment) but it's worth pointing out that we do need to do *something* to have Reagan lose in New Hampshire. A gaff, a health scare, something.

Someone could play dirty and leak rumors of Nancy's consulting with psychics or Reagan's rumored application for membership in the communist party. Or his gubernatorial record on abortion, that would raise hell with the religious right.
 
If you want Bush to win just remove Reagan. The only reason Reagan lost Iowa in the first place was assuming (via campaign manager Sears) that he could glide to the win. The moment he loses a contest—or a bigger challenger earlier, or no Sears—Reagan rolls into high gear and crushes in any similar timeline to ours barring uninsurable acts of god. Of all other candidates and plausible candidates Bush was by far the best prepared, having been running since his starring turn in the 1978 midterms—no Reagan and he can take it just fine.

Or his gubernatorial record on abortion, that would raise hell with the religious right.

They knew and didn’t care because “he changed”. Reagan Affirms Anti‐Abortion Stand
8 February, 1976
New York Times said:
Ronald Reagan conceded today that the liberalized abortion bill he signed as Governor of California led to “abortion on demand” in many of that state's hospitals. He told a news conference here that he would not make the same “mistake” today.

The Californian has taken a solid position against liberalized abortion law in campaigning for the Republican nomination for President, and said he would support a constitutional amendment overthrowing the United States Supreme Court's ruling liberalizing the basis for abortion.

His position, repeated in nearly every stop in New Hampshire, where “Right to Life” groups have made abortion a major campaign issue, is that he opposes abortion in all circumstances except when a mother's life is imperiled by her pregnancy.

In 1967, in his first year as Governor, he signed a bill that went beyond this position, allowing abortions when there was a threat to both the physical and mental health of the patient, and if the pregnancy was the product of rape or incest.
 
Last edited:
. . . The moment he loses a contest—or a bigger challenger earlier, or no Sears—Reagan rolls into high gear and crushes in any similar timeline . . .
I tend to have a lot of sympathy and agreement with this view.

However,

Maybe there's more news coverage of the money difficulties of the Reagan campaign, and the campaign and maybe even Reagan himself responds defensively?

And maybe Bush campaigns particular well.

That is, I think we need both. Both Reagan stumbling and Bush doing particularly well.
 
Carter, Reagan Dominate in Heavy N.H. Vote

Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1980
By Lou Cannon ,
Washington Post Staff Writer; Staff writers Martin Schram ,
Myra McPherson ,
Judy Nicol ,
Art Harris and
David S. Broder contributed
February 27, 1980

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...3fe8c13/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ab8bc4676c03

" . . . Another factor in Bush's defeat may have been his virtual abandonment of personal campaigning in New Hampshire. Ironically, this was the very failing which Bush had capitalized on at Reagan's expense in the Iowa caucuses.

"Because Bush's New Hampshire manager, Hugh Gregg, wanted Bush out of the state to allow his organization to perform and because Bush's national managers wanted him to rest before each of two debates last week, the former United Nations Ambassador made no appearances in New Hampshire for the last seven days of the campaign, other than the debates. . . "
¡Increíble!

Bush makes the same mistake in New Hampshire which Reagan made in Iowa.
 
And maybe Bush campaigns particular well.

The problem here is that not only was Reagan the far better campaigner, but Bush was always awkward on the campaign trail and ineffective in debates. IMO the only reason he won in 1988 was that Dukakis was even worse.

For Bush to be nominated in 1980, you'd probably have to get Reagan out of the picture altogether. A good POD is he is nominated in 1976 but loses to Carter. In 1980 Bush's competition will be much easier to defeat. Even if he loses New Hampshire, he could win South Carolina and from there win the GOP nomination.
 
Interesting discussion, but I agree that Reagan's margin in New Hampshire was large enough that the sort of POD to change that would make his campaign implode. Him deciding that being Governor of California, doing well against an incumbent Prez in the primaries, and his acting career was enough and not running in 1980 might be a better POD. So the circumstances that allow Bush to win both states probably mean he is the nominee as well.

The question then is who is the VP nominee?
 
Interesting discussion, but I agree that Reagan's margin in New Hampshire was large enough that the sort of POD to change that would make his campaign implode. Him deciding that being Governor of California, doing well against an incumbent Prez in the primaries, and his acting career was enough and not running in 1980 might be a better POD. So the circumstances that allow Bush to win both states probably mean he is the nominee as well.

The question then is who is the VP nominee?

Bush would need someone like Kemp, who was mentioned in OTL, to shore up the conservatives. IMO Bush/Kemp comfortably defeats Carter.
 
VP choice could also be affected by how the primary campaign goes down. Arguably, a real right-winger makes a lot more sense if it's a knock-down drag-out fight with Reagan that carries on into the Spring. But what if Bush wins in a walk with the right-wing coalition failing to materialize? Or what if he wins by pushing to the right himself?
 
Top