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.