President Jesse Helms.

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. :)
 
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.
 
Reagan would never pick Helms. He picked Schweiker to reach out and help build party unity.

No, it was in order to bring some of the more moderate delegations over from Ford, allowing him to win the nomination. Instead, it alienated enough of the conservative delegates to give Ford the win.

However, choosing Jesse Helms might have had the exact same effect, with moderate delegates that were already sided with Reagan moving toward Ford, still allowing him to capture the nomination. The best bet I think would be Reagan endorsing Helms as his running mate after he has already won the nomination, or allowing the convention to nominate its own candidate, but asking that Helms enter the running.
 
I doubt Helms would be reelected in 1984 under the circumstances. For one thing, the Republicans have been the white house since 1969. One party can only last so long before there's a certain level of fatigue. Helms is an extraordinarily divisive figure. If you thought people were nuts about W, just wait to see the reaction to President Helms. And if I remember correctly didn't Helms have something of an abrasive personality? The one thing that would probably be going for President Helms would be the economy in my estimation.
 
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.
 
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.

The American public isn't going to re-elect the openly racist Helms, regardless of whether or not the Democrat in question is a liberal or not.
 
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.
 
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.

But, Reagan might well have fallen victim to the same economic mess that did in Carter in '80. If the economy had turned sour, a Mondale/Bentsen ticket could well have won. And, under that same scenario, the moderate wing of the GOP, which still had a bit of life in it, might well have primaried Reagan.
 
Postwar, the only times an incumbent POTUS has lost has been either an economic downturn or their party was greatly weakened.
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?
 
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.
 
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.

You don't think that a non-racist Republican would challenge the openly racist Helms, though? If Helms is on the ballot in 1984, I really, really doubt that he wins. It's not the same country as it was in 1960, and racism is going to be a huge anchor around Helms' neck, especially if the economy is in the dumps (bear in mind that unemployment was still the highest it had been in a generation in 1983 and that Reagan had record low approval rates until near the end of his first term)
 
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.
 
Top