President Muskie

I don't see how that's anything but ASB. I'll repeat what I said in the Muskie '80 thread. The best comparison is Rudy 2008- the supposed frontrunner has no constituency in the party. In the South Wallace will lock everything up, with the potential to win Northern states such as Michigan and Indiana, which will cause serious pantshitting amongst the grandees. Since the ABM vote is so fragmented, they would have to unite behind a single candidate, most likely Humphrey. The only way to do that is to have the DNC unilaterally allow a HHH challenger to the winner-take-all CA primary, accept it, and then McGovern falls short on the first ballot. After that Daley and his colleagues take manual control and ram Humphrey through. The McGovernites' outrage might well lead to a leftist splinter and a third-party that gives Nixon a clean 538-0 sweep of the electoral map. It would be even worse than if the superdelegates, in May 2008, had all swung behind Hillary and by the skin of her teeth received enough delegates for a first-ballot nomination.
 
I have to agree with RogueBeaver on this one, as much as I hate to say it. Nixon was almost unbeatable in 1972.
 
Nixon wasn't unbeatable, especially given his screwing the economy for political purposes, but the China trip and SALT I earned him godhood. Like the 1983-4 recovery for Reagan or the Falklands for Thatcher, a precarious, yet winnable, electoral situation was transformed into deification by a single policy stroke. But to beat Nixon you'd need a DLC-er, and no heavyweights existed from that stillborn wing of the Democratic Party until Gary Hart in 1984. All the available candidates- HHH, Muskie, Jackson, would be eaten for breakfast by Nixon.
 
I have to agree with RogueBeaver on this one, as much as I hate to say it. Nixon was almost unbeatable in 1972.

I largely agree, unless Watergate somehow materialises prior to the election or Nixon is somehow caught selling nuclear secrets to Mao I can see no real way that even the most competent Democrat could win in 1972. As RB says, he wasn't unbeatable, no politician ever is, but there would have to be major screw ups for him to lose the election.

However, if Muskie is placed on the Vice-Presidential Ticket (which was a strong possibility) and performs well against Agnew then the likelihood of him gaining victory in '76 would be very possible indeed, certainly he would have a better run in the White House than Carter did in OTL.
 
Muskie would be a better president than Carter, undoubtedly. The Democrats' problem in the late 1970s is that their presidentiables can either perform well domestically or on national security. Scoop Jackson would certainly do well on foreign and defense policy, but his New Dealish economic policies are woefully outdated and would only deepen the economic slump. Carter had good instincts on domestic policy, but was God-awful on foreign policy. In 1976, if Reagan is the Republican nominee, as is quite likely, both ITTL and IOTL circumstances, it's game over. Muskie is a rather bland character who isn't tough enough for presidential politics. One cheap trick and he sobs on national television.
 
I remember that there was a Draft-Muskie movement at the 1980 Democratic National Convention among the delegates. It didn't gain much ground unfortunately since it depended upon a deadlocked convention, where he would be nominated as a compromise candidate. If the convention had deadlocked between Kennedy and Carter, it is possible that he would be nominated, and could have defeated Reagan.
 
I debunked this as ASB a few days ago.

The supers would push either Carter or Kennedy over the top, but it would not be a pleasant scene on the floor of Madison Square Garden. Muskie, as Secretary of State, would not have a wide base of support. In addition, he's only three years younger than Reagan, so there goes the age argument against Reagan. Muskie is a New Deal Democrat in the Humphrey mold, associated with a failed administration and whose record in national politics has hardly been a wild success. His dethronement in 1972 is comparable to Rudy's in 2008- from frontrunner to nowhere. In 1968 he lost as VP. Reagan is, along with FDR, the most charismatic president of the 20th century, with a solid hold on WWC voters- Reagan Democrats. New Dealers might be sentimental about WWC, but their ideology doesn't get WWC votes. Muskie's colourless and would not appeal to enough voters. If anything, he might do worse than Carter- lose Georgia to Reagan.
 
Top