Reagan-Laxalt ticket in 1980

David T

In 1992, Bill Clinton defied conventional wisdom about ticket-balancing and chose Al Gore as his running mate, giving the Democrats a national ticket of two youngish southern "new Democrats." Suppose Reagan had done the same in 1980 and chosen Paul Laxalt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Laxalt as his running mate, giving the GOP a ticket of two genial western conservatives? Nancy Reagan thinks her husband preferred Laxalt and only rejected him as running mate for geographical reasons, asking him "Why the hell do you have to live in Nevada?" http://books.google.com/books?id=ywa9p2PNLzAC&pg=PA43

Presumably the ticket wins, but what then? Can Laxalt get the GOP presidential nomination in 1988? (After all, he will be younger then than Reagan was in 1980...) In OTL Laxalt did have a short-lived presidential bid for the 1988 nomination, but of course there is a difference between being a relatively little-known retired ex-senator and being the vice-president...
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
He would work well with Reagan and be popular with the Republican base. I think he would win the 1988 Republican nomination. In the good economic times of 1988 he would win the election. He would be more conservative than Bush. I can see him keeping a no new taxes pledge.
 
V-J

V-J

Nancy Reagan was as close to Laxalt as her husband, maybe moreso, and he was widely-believed to be her preferred candidate as the GOP nominee in '88 OTL, so even taking into account her considerable influence, I'd take what she says with a small pinch of salt. She's not exactly an unbiased spectator on such matters. Putting Laxalt on the ticket made no geographical sense but it also made no political sense when Reagan had to win over moderates; Bush also brought foreign policy credentials to the table. Ultimately Reagan was no more eager to go full-bore with a right-wing ticket in 1980 than he had been in 1976; he was wisely thinking about election, not his successor. Clinton was doing something in 1992 which he was convinced would be electorally beneficial. Reagan-Laxalt would not be.

But if George Bush falls under a bus in '81 or '82, at the height of Reaganism, then that's an interesting one. Notably though, Laxalt retired in '87 OTL because he was falling out of love with public service. (He ran his abortive, five-minute campaign for President under a lot of duress) Those early days of Reagan, they wouldn't be coming back under his successor in anything like the same way, that's for sure. On which note, I wonder just how Vice President Laxalt involves himself in Iran-Contra, or not as the case may be. And without Bush's influence, Baker might also be pushed out earlier, and an earlier outing for Don Regan might be in the offing. In the midst of this, would Laxalt stick to Reagan like glue as Bush did, or would he be more willing to exert himself? Lots of known unknowns here.

I somehow doubt he'd be looked upon as the forsaken Saviour of the Party as he was in '88 OTL by the right ITTL. Or if he is, then that impacts on the '88 race fer sure. He's probably gonna get pummelled in Iowa, for starters, in either case. By Bob Doolllle!
 
Last edited:
Sevarics

Sevarics

Maybe the Butterflies will be generous with their Nectar and prevent GWB from ever being a candidate against Ann Richards in the Texas gubernatorial race leading her to continue to be in office and maybe be a President/VPresident (maybe)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top