Ronald Reagan beats Ford in 1976

Valdemar II

Banned
First, I don't think that Ted Kennedy would be a given for the nomination for the party, the Chappaquiddick incident would of still been brought up, it happened in 69. Plus, he was unable to beat a weak President Carter in 80, I just can't see him winning the nomination..

I agree.

Reagan in the general election would of more then likely still have the Reagon coalition which caused him to win 80 and 84 in landslides. With this backing, and his political skill, I don't see Reagan looking to either Carter or if some how he wins the nomination, Kennedy. .

I disagree without four years of Carter I doubt they would have changed side, but that doesn't mean that Reagan can't win.

The more interesting factor would be a Reagan administration 4 years earlier then in the OTL.

It would end up like the Carter adminstration all the bad thing which happen to Carter would happen to Reagan, maybe with the exception of the hostage crisis. I doubt Reagan could win in 1980 which would mean at least two term under a Democratic president.
 
if Reagan is going to get the nomination, he needs to be win in the primaries. and if Reagan's winning then who says it'll be Carter that he runs against? why not Jerry Brown or Frank Church or maybe Ted Kennedy will run. (there's also Scoop Jackson & Morris Udall to think about)

If we're butterflying a Reagan win it's too late for Ted Kennedy to enter and too late for Carter to lose (too many delegates, too few contests left for anyone else to stop him).

So it will be Reagan Vs. Carter (though Carter may choose a different VP).


(Oh, and thanks Nicomacheus for saving me the trouble of setting the stage properly.)

Previous Threads:
Reagan in '76
Reagan Becomes President in 1977 Instead of 1981
Reagan Wins The Tennessee Primary
(For The Reagan Vs. Kennedy Fans) Stark Choices: The '76 Presidential Election
Does Reagan Beat Carter In '76?
 
Last edited:
Electric Monk said:
(Oh, and thanks Nicomacheus for saving me the trouble of setting the stage properly.)

No problem, my friend.

The more interesting factor would be a Reagan administration 4 years earlier then in the OTL.

True. I can think of a few big categories: (I include these because it appears I have different opinions than previous posts).

1) Reagan's election is not so much of a "Revolution" as OTL. Given the Republican fatigue in '76, I think it'll be much harder for Reagan to score the kind of victory in '76 he did over Carter OTL in 1980. I'm not sure who has control of Congress, though. In any event, the point is that without Carter in charge, Watergate isn't compounded with a "national malaise"; instead, Reagan comes in just in time to nip pessimism in the bud. This means, though, that there's no dip, no +400 hostage crisis to make Reagan seem like a shining light in a storm. This has important effects for Reagan's legacy, both within the GOP and beyond.

2) There will be some economic disconnect as to whether Reaganomics is working: stagflation and the oil crisis will perist. Even if you get a Volker + tax cut rebound, things aren't going to get great overnight. The key, I think, is whether things are better by the 1980 elections. I think so, but I'm not sure.

3) There's all sorts of things for Reagan to take a much harder line earlier than Carter did. Keeping the Panama Canal may be hard, since Ford began the negotiations. Having just watched Charlie Wilson's War on DVD, I'd imagine Reagan talks about the Soviet aggression there much more openly -- if the CIA doesn't drop the ball.

4) Even more so than OTL, Reagan won't be facing just one Soveit Premier. This may influence the internal politics of the Kremlin; it certainly will once you figure in Reagan's different reactions, etc. I would say you might still get something like an arms-reduction treaty, since Carter got one and Reagan would if he could a Soviet Premier to deal with.

5) Rather than talking big, Reagan will actually have to deal with the Iranian Revolution as it unfolds. He probably can't invade, but the CIA might have some fun. If the revolutionaries still take hostages though, all bets may be off (probably just a more aggressive extraction).

6) I think Reagan probably still wins in 1980 and probably by big margins. But whose his VP? Will his VP run in 1984? The President from 84-88 may have a harder time holding on to his seat than HW Bush had winning the White House, whichever party he's from, since the economy is liable to be weaker, though it's hard to speculate that far on. It actually might be a good time for an early Clinton run (he contemplated doing so OTL).

7) Since we've now tinkered with Kremlin politics for a good while now, there's no predicting what happens to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. From my ever so rudimentary read, the power struggles in the early 80s saw an increasing divide between hardliners and reformers. There's no guarantee that a reformer like Gorbachev comes to power. There's no guarantee that a hardline coup fails.

8) Then of course there's a bunch of little things: the Space Program. The Egyptian - Israeli Peace talks (those are likely to happen in some form, since IMO the key was that Sadat serious wanted them to happen, though Carter played a role to be sure). Etc, etc, etc.
 
Where to begin there has been so much in this thread...

First to the question; a straight Reagan vs. Carter (no other butterflies, just Reagan eking out the nomination at convention which was every possible). Key points that may be lost after 30 years of changes in US politics;

1. The "religiously motivated voters” known in 76 still as "new born Christians" are going to be with Carter and other than on family issues they’re liberal (favor détente, anti-death, pro welfare state, et.al.). He is one of them, very vocal about it on the campaign (which in OTL hurt him slightly with the new liberals of the early 70s). Also all the major Christian “leaders” (even a new comer named Pat Robertson) support Carter. So Reagan might pull a little support from Carter but not much. Advantage Carter big…
2. Abortion, while not a major issue yet, Carter allowed those who were against it to believe he was as well. Reagan, while personally opposed still held his position from his governor days, "personally opposed, but willing to allow the "people" i.e. legislatures to work it out, in limited form.” I suspect this is a gain for Carter, in 76 having not been the President (yet) to enforce Roe v. Wade he can use Reagan’s record as governor, signed the first major Abortion law (allowing), Reagan’s conflicts on this probably hurt him more in 76.
3. The Nixon Effect; one, Reagan was the first major Republican to come out against Nixon over Watergate, and he had been a luke warm supporter at best (obeying the 11th Commandment). Many sources, both supporters and adversities, state Reagan always had a bad feeling about Nixon. So Carter can still hit him with Nixon, but to less impact as with Ford. Plus Reagan won’t have been the guy pardoning Nixon.
4. The Washington Outsider “I’m a Governor” thing… Reagan is more of an outsider than Carter. Advantage Reagan, Reagan was a success as governor, actually an amazing success considering the mess he inherited. Carter was at best a so-so GA governor, spent most of his last two years (73-74) doing DNC business, wonder why?
5. Equal Rights; Guess who had pushed for equality laws (including equal pay) as governor and whose daughter was an early feminist. BUT Reagan did oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, (as did a considerable amount of feministsin the beginning, want to use existing law). Carter endorsed it, really his only action with regards to feminists till he became President. Slight advantage Reagan.
6. Odds and Ends; Reagan agreed with ending the draft, he had always opposed a peacetime draft, Carter talked around it. Reagan would have would have appealed to Hawkish Dems but would have had to sell the Nixon-Ford Republicans. Also were was real tension between Reagan and the leadership of the Republican Party, especially with Ford and Nixon. Both were Tax cutter/Tax Reformers, and both opposed the Kissinger “we and the Soviets aren’t that different” tack in foreign affairs. Finally, both opposed, at least in 76 nuclear weapons treaties that slowed or limited grown only. Both Reagan and Carter averred treaties that actually cut stockpiles. Push

Therefore, I suspect the election would come down to the better debater and better campaign team. After a dismal start, the Reagan team by the convention was A+. Carter team did a great job getting the nomination then coasted. Debater, please, although without 4 years of President Carter, Reagan doesn’t have as much material to work with. In the End (because this is the AH you have to pick!) Reagan, between 51-53% only because he’d have to spent no effort west of the west (especially California) (Ford while wining it all did have to work a little) and I see him picking off a Southern state or two (Mississippi and Texas?) and Ohio.

Break; one point, since it was brought up. Yes, then Screen Actors Guild president Reagan testified before the Un-American Affairs committee and conceded communist efforts to take control of various Hollywood unions, which was really happening, leadership of SAG during the mid to late 40s was a dangerous job, there were threats against many of them including Reagan, Spenser Tracy (his house was vandalized, tires slashed, windows shot out in an effort get him to resign during his term as president); there even individuals hurt. “Communist” members, self-description of themselves, wanted to change the charters of the these unions to end direct majority election to leadership, and replace it with “executive committees” of the Soviet model.
FTR, the major thrust of Reagan testimony was “let us (the Hollywood community) handle this, committee hearings, publicly going after individuals, and new laws are necessary… it will only hurt. He succeeded in convincing Congress to stay out, till the 50s at least. Also he vocally opposed Blacklisting, felt it made “us” no different than “them.”
 
Last edited:
1) Reagan's election is not so much of a "Revolution" as OTL. Given the Republican fatigue in '76, I think it'll be much harder for Reagan to score the kind of victory in '76 he did over Carter OTL in 1980. I'm not sure who has control of Congress, though. In any event, the point is that without Carter in charge, Watergate isn't compounded with a "national malaise"; instead, Reagan comes in just in time to nip pessimism in the bud. This means, though, that there's no dip, no +400 hostage crisis to make Reagan seem like a shining light in a storm. This has important effects for Reagan's legacy, both within the GOP and beyond.

In '76 the Watergate babies will retain control of the House and the Senate (i.e. Democratic they will remain, even if Carter loses). 1978 is the earliest a Republican challenge can be mounted (they ran very successful "campaign" courses for their politicans, and unlike the Democrats they stage managed the entire midterms as if it were one large election) although, as IOTL, 1980 & a popular Republican & an unpopular Democrat would be required for the Democrats to actually lose control of Congress.

Hmm. Reagan has optimism, yes, but he's facing the same set of circumstances.

2) There will be some economic disconnect as to whether Reaganomics is working: stagflation and the oil crisis will perist. Even if you get a Volker + tax cut rebound, things aren't going to get great overnight. The key, I think, is whether things are better by the 1980 elections. I think so, but I'm not sure.

It won't be Reaganomics. The Kemp-Roth 30% supply-side tax cut did not gain currency until later—helped by the property tax revolt in '78 California. In 1976 Reagan would almost certainly have hewed to the standard Republican line: balanced budgets, lower taxes, program cutting (he may have the political capital to reverse Nixon-era entitlements, or de-index them to a fair extent), and higher defence spending.

That said, combined with a more aggressive version of OTL Carter's deregulation, the economy should be picking up by 1980 anyway. The 1980 race could have been close (if the Carter team was able to govern or perform well in general elections) and Reagan's term should be a lot better than Carter's.

Reagan is able to work with Congress (Carter couldn't), his campaign team is good at general elections (Carter's… not so much), and he's not going to do stupid speeches & dumb dismiss entire cabinet moves like Carter did.

3) There's all sorts of things for Reagan to take a much harder line earlier than Carter did. Keeping the Panama Canal may be hard, since Ford began the negotiations. Having just watched Charlie Wilson's War on DVD, I'd imagine Reagan talks about the Soviet aggression there much more openly -- if the CIA doesn't drop the ball.

I think he can keep the Canal, if he works out a deal that it's just the US military base. No training, no revenue from the Canal, payment to the Panamanians—but the base stays.

I agree he can take a harder line on Afghanistan (if the Soviets invade in the ATL). Presumably Republican CIA means someone different—George Bush, actually—in charge. From all accounts Bush did a very good job restoring the CIA's morale IOTL so it's quite reasonable that the CIA pulls it together for Afghanistan.

5) Rather than talking big, Reagan will actually have to deal with the Iranian Revolution as it unfolds. He probably can't invade, but the CIA might have some fun. If the revolutionaries still take hostages though, all bets may be off (probably just a more aggressive extraction).

It would be nice if they dropped the 101st airborne on Tehran, but I suppose that's unlikely. The Carter plan was nuts: the force was too small, everything was at the margins of error, and there really wasn't a realistic chance to get that force in and out with the hostages even if everything had gone right.

However if the US was willing to up the ante a few thousand troops could reasonably be committed. An airborne battalion to seize a long runway airstrip. A CIA special ops team to prep the embassy. A marine force in helicopters to take the embassy, ferry the hostages to the airport, and withdraw on heavy transport planes. A couple carriers to destroy the Iranian air defence grid.

Iran's going to hate the USA anyway—might as well give them a good reason.

In all likelihood Reagan just cuts the same arms for hostages deal of OTL.

6) I think Reagan probably still wins in 1980 and probably by big margins. But whose his VP? Will his VP run in 1984? The President from 84-88 may have a harder time holding on to his seat than HW Bush had winning the White House, whichever party he's from, since the economy is liable to be weaker, though it's hard to speculate that far on. It actually might be a good time for an early Clinton run (he contemplated doing so OTL).

Will if he wins in '76 it's either because he did a little better in the primaries and hence has a somewhat free rein to pick a VP or because Sear's Schweiker plan worked at the convention. In the second case, Schweiker '84 is more moderate than Bush '88 was, and as such I'm not sure he can win the nomination.

In the first case he probably picks someone from the Midwest (Dole) or a different Northeastern moderate (i.e., less moderate). He doesn't need a Southerner (Reagan was popular there, and should cut into Carter regardless) or a Westerner. James L. Buckley might be too conservative, but a moderate to conservative Northerner is what he's looking for. Perhaps somebody from Ohio/Pennsylvania?


As for 1980 I agree that Reagan wins again (Ted Kennedy? I think EMK was more pissed at Carter's incompetence in running a government though. Jerry Ford? Still Governor of California and a moderate).

1984 is trickier. That's a good year for Kennedy to win if he held off so far, especially given that the Republican nomination might be a pretty nasty one—like 1988 if Bush was weaker, there was no Dole, and there was a very strong Reagan analogue.

In 1988 I agree that Clinton might run. Cuomo, if he survives butterflies, should be on the board.

1. The "religiously motivated voters” known in 76 still as "new born Christians" are going to be with Carter and other than on family issues they’re liberal (favor détente, anti-death, pro welfare state, et.al.). He is one of them, very vocal about it on the campaign (which in OTL hurt him slightly with the new liberals of the early 70s). Also all the major Christian “leaders” (even a new comer named Pat Robertson) support Carter.So Reagan might pull a little support from Carter but not much. Advantage Carter big

In the South they are liberal on economic issues, yes, but they also prefer hardline anti-Communists & Reagan was consistently popular in the South. Electoral math wise Reagan will force Carter to tend to his Southern base when Ford couldn't.

2. Abortion while not a major issue yet, Carter allowed those who were against it to believe he was as well. Reagan, while personally opposed still held his position from his governor days, "personally opposed, but willing to allow the "people" i.e. legislatures to work it out, in limited form.” I suspect this is a gain for Carter, in 76 having not been the President (yet) to enforce Roe v. Wade he can use Reagan’s record as governor, signed the first major Abortion law (allowing), Reagan’s conflicts on this probably hurt him more in 76.

Nah. Reagan always sounded good on social issues while never doing anything about it. Carter can't exploit this issue because he'll lose his liberal activist base—and outside of the South he still needs that base.


3. The Nixon Effect;
One, Reagan was the first major Republican to come out against Nixon over Watergate, and he had been a luke warm supporter at best (obeying the 11th Commandment). Many sources, both supporters and adversities, state Reagan always had a bad feeling about Nixon. So Carter can still hit him with Nixon, but to less impact as with Ford. Plus Reagan won’t have been the guy pardoning Nixon

Yep. Ford pardoned him and Reagan attacked Ford hard in the primaries. He has distance, and he can easily bat away Carter's attempts to pin Nixon on him.

4. The Washington Outsider “I’m a Governor” thing…
Reagan is more of an outsider than Carter.Advantage Reagan, Reagan was a success as governor, actually an amazing success considering the mess he inherited. Carter was at best a so-so GA governor, spent most of his last two years (73-74) doing DNC business, wonder why?

Agreed. The outsider issue was fairly big for Carter against Ford—Reagan flips it because Congress is Democratic & he's more of an outsider than Carter as you mentioned.


5. Equal Rights;
Guess who had pushed for equality laws (including equal pay) as governor and whose daughter was an early feminist. BUT Reagan did oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, (as did a considerable amount of feministsin the beginning, want to use existing law). Carter endorsed it, really his only action with regards to feminists till he became President. Slight advantage Reagan.

Once again, agreed. ERA is slightly more of an issue in '76, but it never gained that much traction. Reagan may be forced to use more supportive language than in 1980, but it won't matter.


6. Odds and Ends;
Reagan agreed with ending the draft, he had always opposed a peacetime draft, Carter talked around it. Reagan would have would have appealed to Hawkish Dems but would have had to sell the Nixon-Ford Republicans. Also were was real tension between Reagan and the leadership of the Republican Party, especially with Ford and Nixon. Both were Tax cutter/Tax Reformers, and both opposed the Kissinger “we and the Soviets aren’t that different” tack in foreign affairs. Finally, both opposed, at least in 76 nuclear weapons treaties that slowed or limited grown only. Both Reagan and Carter averred treaties that actually cut stockpiles. Push.

Reagan can probably gain a bit more traction on the military, because the Democrats are still damaged by McGovern and he's still pushing to keep the Panama Canal. That said, it shouldn't be big.


Therefore, I suspect the election would come down to the better debater and better campaign team. After a dismal start, the Reagan team by the convention was A+. Carter team did a great job getting the nomination then coasted.

Yeah Carter's campaign team could, and did, win primaries against tough opposition. They sucked at general elections (and, incidentally, governing).

Reagan has John Sears/his quality campaign team + Ford's brilliant campaign team at his disposal. This is no contest.
 
Might Jesse Jackson fare a lil better in this TL during the 1984 Campaign(No Hymietown comment), so well infact that Kennedy decides to pick him as his Running Mate? Or who else could be a possible contender against an earlier Reagan VP? But here's a thought, if Reagan does indeed win the 1980 election any chance the Hicnkley still attempts the assasination or could he be more successful?
 
Might Jesse Jackson fare a lil better in this TL during the 1984 Campaign(No Hymietown comment), so well infact that Kennedy decides to pick him as his Running Mate? Or who else could be a possible contender against an earlier Reagan VP? But here's a thought, if Reagan does indeed win the 1980 election any chance the Hicnkley still attempts the assasination or could he be more successful?

I had to check when Taxi Driver was made, so it's possible.
 
How would Reagan take the Iranian Revolution.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Well, before the revolution ever happens, I'd expect Reagan wouldn't push the French to allow the Ayatollah a place of exile. Which means, either some form of house arrest in an Arab country, who wouldn’t allow him the freedom of communication the French did, or internal exile in Iran, leading to a minor martyrdom BUT he isn’t there to rally the religious radicals.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Second, the Reagan administration 76 would still push the Shah to liberalize his government. This effort started under Nixon/Ford, STATE and DEFENSE had learned from Vietnam, BUT unlike Carter they would be more careful, not allow the radicals in Iran, both religious and secular to think that American was indifferent to both who governed Iran and how they got there. (Same mistake was made by the Vance DOS in Latin American)[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']So it’s possible that instead of a “revolution,” you get the secular liberals, who led the initial overthrow of the Shah in OTL. Playing more and more a part of the Shah’s government. Also the Shah’s American educated son, who at the time was hinting to both the Shah and US that he would be happy as a British style Monarch plays a bigger role. [/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']It still wouldn't be perfect, and the Mullah’s would be a problem but it would not be the basket case in 79 and 80 it was OTL.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']2. Break; now if he has to deal with OTL revolution, I would believe, he would be quicker to approach the moderates, and would deal with the exiled Shah more deftly (let him know, he needed to go the France for medical treatment or even approach the Iran government with the Islamic charity to one’s adversities angle). His State Department Shultz form day one, letting them know we can live with a neutral anti-Soviet Iran (like Austria…) who is still a counterweight to Iraq.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']And no way he gets involved helping Iraq if they attack. Reagan was never comfortable OTL with supporting Iraq it was a policy he inherited and that Britain, France and the Gulf countries pushed.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']3. Regarding the Hostage Crisis; (1) he would have take the advice of the old timers at the State Department Day One, personally called the leadership of the USSR, all the Arab countries, India, and China, and told them;[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] “I need your help, you need to immediately, publicly, and in your native tongue and Farsi, tell the Iranians, your people, and the world that the government Iranian must immediately end this and return the embassy and hostages to US control or Iranian will be a pariah state, outside international law, for breaking the most important tenant of international law. Because if you don’t your telling every terrorist, self-style freedom fighter, upset minor upstart state, your embassies, ambassadors, consuls, are fair game every time they have an issue with you…”[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']** Unlike Carter, who listen to C. Vance and did not even request our allies or adversities to support us on the one issue every state-nation agreed on (at the time).[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Having gotten the vocal support of the world I believe he would have made life very hard on Iran’s government, arranged an embargo of gasoline made it impossible for their embassies to work, cut off the flow of money Iranian working in the gulf counties sent home, harassed Iranian shipping, maybe hit any IR navy craft that came out. Basically everything short actually bombing Iranian civilians. None of which was done OTL ( except freeze assets which I believe Reagan would have gotten the whole world to go along with), but was considered[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']And if all that failed, he would told them military get them out do it however (short of nucs) you must, brief me but I’m not going to run your show. From there who knows…[/FONT]
 
First, I don't think that Ted Kennedy would be a given for the nomination for the party, the Chappaquiddick incident would of still been brought up, it happened in 69. Plus, he was unable to beat a weak President Carter in 80, I just can't see him winning the nomination.

Chappaquiddick was used in 80 as a way of talking about Ted's drinking and drug use (which were less in 1976)
also the man was run against a sitting President of his own party, that has own ever worked once in the whole history of the USA (1856) it's a sign of how well loved he was that he did as well as he did, by 1980 Ted was a mess, 4 year before not so bad as all that.
also the Iran hostage crisis had Way more to do with ending Ted's bid for the nomination then Chappaquiddick did, he was up something like 50 to 40 when the Hostages were taken then Carter popped up into the 60 % zone.

like i said it's 76 or never for Ted, Chappaquiddick is 7 years past every thing to be said has been said and Ted is still in one peace and not yet the wreck he'd become in the 80-90's
 
Might Jesse Jackson fare a lil better in this TL during the 1984 Campaign(No Hymietown comment), so well infact that Kennedy decides to pick him as his Running Mate? Or who else could be a possible contender against an earlier Reagan VP? (snipped) quote]

You could see at attempt by the Dems to go "Moderate." If Reagan wins in 76 and 80 it will have been 16 years (24 of the last 30) of Republican White House's 4 straight defeated Demcratic standard bearers. They'll be in the same place the Republicans were in 1952 but without the Korean war. You might just see John Glenn (in this TL he, the astronaut/Marine is going to look a lot better to DEM dying for a win), maybe a GOV Zell Miller (in his 2nd very sucessful term in Atlanta) move to the front as "moderate" DEM Reagan lites, "Every you liked about Reagan and nothing you didn't..." like Clinton in 92

BREAK...If we stick with the no major butterflies in 76 other than Reagan wins the nom, making Shweiker VP 77-81, does Reagan goes for a more right wing VP in 80 (no longer needing to keep the Wednesday Morning Republicans happy) to setup a successor more to his views.

Mills Godwin, Phil Graham, Baker... after that successful run, especially if they get the Senate for awhile, a certain former Senator from Tenn might follow Graham over to the GOP be a possible GOP VP candidate
 
How would Reagan take the Iranian Revolution.

One reason the Iranian Revolution happened is b/c Carter stopped supporting the Shah and (I think) persuaded the Iranian military to accept Khomeini.

Reagan wouldn't stop supporting the Shah and I strongly doubt he would try to push Khomeini on the military if they allow the Shah to be ejected.
 
Top