Easy. Reagan beats Ford in '76 because he doesn't make the Schweiker pledge and picks Helms as his running mate. Reagan wins a second term in '80 and is assassinated in March '81. With no credible Democratic opposition, Helms serves eight years as POTUS. Oh, and Rummy, Gingrich and Cheney are all very prominent as SecDef, Majority Leader and House Speaker respectively.![]()
Reagan would never pick Helms. He picked Schweiker to reach out and help build party unity.
There are no credible Democrats to run against Helms in 1984, unless Gary Hart gets the nomination or Lloyd Bentsen runs. It has to be a DLC Democrat, and Hart and Bentsen are the only ones, even though New Dealism is in its death throes within the party, and was dead with the electorate after November 1968.
Postwar, the only times an incumbent POTUS has lost has been either an economic downturn or their party was greatly weakened. That was the case in 1976 and 1992, and in 1984 Helms, who would follow Reagan's economic policies, would have the gale-force wind of recovery at his back.
So you're saying that because there might not be an economic downturn, Jesse Helms, who was not elected to the position of President and who is a notorious racist nutcase, would be re-elected? Jesse Helms? Really?Postwar, the only times an incumbent POTUS has lost has been either an economic downturn or their party was greatly weakened.
Though few would think so today, Reagan was thought to face a primary challenge from the right, not the left in late '81 and '82. The GOP doesn't do primary challenges, which since 1912 have been a Democratic phenomenon.
Who would it be? Bob Dole? Howard Baker? Dull as dishwater, and they'd be thumped by Hart or Bentsen, though not Mondale who is clinging to a dead ideology. There'd be no POTUS Bush I in this scenario though, so maybe no Bush dynasty.