Reagan-Hatch instead of Reagan-Bush

Is it possible for us to have Orrin Hatch to be Reagan's VP instead, I assume he would be the 41st president after Reagan as well, how would Orrin be different from HW Bush.
 
Hatch doesn't make much sense as a running mate for Reagan. First, he was a fellow Westerner--this apparently is what eliminated Paul Laxalt, whom Reagan would otherwise have wanted on the ticket. Second, he was from a safe Republican state. Third (and related) the GOP was pretty sure to get the Mormon vote anyway, and having a Mormon on the ticket might not be to the taste of some Evangelicals. Fourth, and by far the most important, Reagan had to win over moderate Republicans--hence the negotiations with Ford, hence the choice of Bush when those negotiations broke down. He was already assured of conservative support, and while moderate Republicans might not like Carter, they would not necessarily vote for Reagan--they might stay home or vote for Anderson.

One might also add that Hatch's credentials look thin compared to other people Reagan considered, such as Ford, Bush, and Baker. [1] He had served less than four years in the Senate (yes, I know that was also true of Obama in 2008 but Hatch hardly had Obama's--or Reagan's--talents as an orator). If Reagan wanted to double down and have a ticket of two conservatives, there were more plausible choices such as Jack Kemp. (Though some Republicans worried about a ticket that could be described as "the aging actor and the aging quarterback").

[1] Indeed, it has been argued that these were the only three possibilities Reagan seriously considered, though there's a story that he almost chose Rumsfeld. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...esnt-choose-bush-for-vp.348849/#post-10533118
 
Last edited:
[1] Indeed, it has been argued that these were the only three possibilities Reagan seriously considered, though there's a story that he almost chose Rumsfeld. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...esnt-choose-bush-for-vp.348849/#post-10533118

Honestly, I think you can pretty much effectively discount Ford as well. The move to pick Ford was never close to reaching culmination. It's actually surprising it got as far off the ground as it did, IMO.

I think it was always going to be realistically between Baker and Bush. And that makes me wonder why we've never seen anyone explore Baker becoming Pres. on the back of Hinckley on here. Bush would have been watched like a hawk by the right had that happened - how their nemesis Baker becoming president would play out with them, well, that's a hell of a situation.
 
Honestly, I think you can pretty much effectively discount Ford as well. The move to pick Ford was never close to reaching culmination. It's actually surprising it got as far off the ground as it did, IMO

Have Ford say yes one of the several times Reagan asked him, Witcover lays out the scenario that would have worked better than the Ford wanting particular powers tack it took… that is, Ford sacrificing for the good of the country. Versus the lightweight Bush and the boring Baker, Ford looks amazing so I certainly see why Reagan gave it a shot.

Given that Reagan didn’t even like Bush, I agree that Hinckley/Baker—or even just how messy Baker ‘88 would be—is totally underplayed on the board.

(Hatch though, well, the Supreme Court is a rather more likely spot for him.)
 
Last edited:
Have Ford say yes one of the several times Reagan asked him, Witcover lays out the scenario that would have worked better than the Ford wanting particular powers tack it took… that is, Ford sacrificing for the good of the country.

Versus the lightweight Bush and the boring Baker, Ford looks amazing so I certainly see why Reagan gave it a shot.

I think it was always going to be one of those things which looked good for five minutes of headlines, but then the problems would set in. And I think they eventually realised that, Ford included. I don't think the thing you cite of 'I'm just there as a sleeping partner', I don't think that's going to satisfy the media. As indeed, Cronkite pointedly did not define it as. And I don't think Ford, or his court, would be satisfied with just taking the second slot to help the Gipper without a quid pro quo. Even a positive early noise would be subject to that process.

Given that Reagan didn’t even like Bush,

Not in the midst of the 1980 primaries and before the selection, no, but there was a good working relationship established in the presidency with their weekly lunches. Gipper wasn't no Nixon. I'd imagine he'd take a similar approach with anyone respecting the traditional boundaries of the second office.

I agree that Hinckley/Baker—or even just how messy Baker ‘88 would be—is totally underplayed on the board.

Baker '88 is a very interesting one. Not only would it probably not be possible to cling to the Gipper and the right as closely as Bush, I just can't even see it flying with Baker, given his history. But the right-wing bench, it wasn't strong in that cycle.

(Hatch though, well, the Supreme Court is a rather more likely spot for him.)

What from I've read, it seems like none of the Reagan justice departments rated Hatch. I read something a while back, I think it was under Meese, about them deliberately inflating a 'disqualification' for Hatch during one of the vacancies due to him voting for a congressional pay increase.
 
They are at the convention. Time is a seriously limiting factor, indeed that’s the the most plausible way to satisfy the OP and get Hatch—for whatever reason Reagan looks like he’s going to lose badly and people start turning him down.

What from I've read, it seems like none of the Reagan justice departments rated Hatch. I read something a while back, I think it was under Meese, about them deliberately inflating a 'disqualification' for Hatch during one of the vacancies due to him voting for a congressional pay increase.

Yeah Hatch voted a raise, can’t legally transition to Supreme Court. @Andrew T and Dirty Laundry did a bit, why I thought of Hatch for the court.

[24] Hatch was on the short list for the Supremes IOTL in 1987, but was considered ineligible under Art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution because the Senate voted for a pay raise for Supreme Court Justices in February of 1987.
 
I think Hatch defeating Bush in the primaries in 88 might be more plausible.

Hatch vs Biden in 88 might be interesting to see.
 
Yeah Hatch voted a raise, can’t legally transition to Supreme Court. @Andrew T and Dirty Laundry did a bit, why I thought of Hatch for the court.

I worked out where I read about the Hatch blocking; it was in Greenburg. Apparently she reckons they were determined to block Hatch, so inserted a memo on the constitutional bar of him going to the SCOTUS. Some other specifically Bork-centric source books reckon Hatch was a genuine contender. Though it sounds like Diamond Joe and the Dem caucus weren't keen on that notion remotely; apparently Biden said any consideration of a procedural fix to the appointment issue was 'non-negotiable'! Sounds to me like senatorial-ness making Hatch an automatic easy confirmation may have been as reliable as 'Bork will be loved by the liberal press because of his position on the first amendment'...

What you said about time being a limiting factor, that's precisely one of the reasons why Ford was rejected IOTL; too little time to conceptually wrangle over how that would work. If you read Witcover's book with Germond, I think it's fairly clear that Bush was always the secondary, and in some cases, primary choice of the Reagan court.

I won't delve into commentary on that timeline, but I will say that AT was often completely sure of himself, and often... shouldn't have been as sure of himself, so my advice is some caution on anything he used there.
 
Last edited:
Yo I agree with everything @V-J said* except for their refusal to name the book :). It’s called Blue Smoke and Mirrors and you can borrow it for free from the Open Library. It’s required reading for discussing politics in this era.

I’m only on chapter three but so far the new Carter-Kennedy book, Camelot’s End by Jon Wars, is intriguing as well if orthogonal to the discussion.


*Performative certainty is often ingrained in lawyers, to defend Andrew somewhat, so I never take it at face value lol.
 
Top