What-If?: George Wallace Wins the Democratic Nomination, 1976?
- Thread starter vultan
- Start date
I noticed this thread recently, and I think Wallace would win a landslide by sweeping the Midwest and the South, with the Northeast and West within reach.
Just because from 2012 someone seems detestable doesn't mean they didn't have serious star power as a candidate; even Hunter S. Thompson noted that Wallace was unique of the 1972 Democratic nominees in that he had real (scarily so) appeal. Carter was poised to win a landslide after the convention but squandered it because he ran a shitty campaign and Ford ran a brilliant one. Wallace is a lot better at playing the Washington Outsider fiddle, and will probably get a landslide.
Just because from 2012 someone seems detestable doesn't mean they didn't have serious star power as a candidate; even Hunter S. Thompson noted that Wallace was unique of the 1972 Democratic nominees in that he had real (scarily so) appeal. Carter was poised to win a landslide after the convention but squandered it because he ran a shitty campaign and Ford ran a brilliant one. Wallace is a lot better at playing the Washington Outsider fiddle, and will probably get a landslide.
I would agree that Wallace not being shot, or at least not sustaining the injuries he did, would be essential to making him a legitimate contender. FDR aside, someone in Wallace's condition is going to have a hard time winning support, ontop of hostility towards him from much of the people who vote in Democratic primaries. I do not know if he could have prevented McGovern's nomination. In that case we would be looking at a Humphrey nomination. Assuming all else is equal I agree there is likely to be a strong liberal third party campaign, and 1976 could end up as a messy election indeed.
The problem isn't just that he seems detestable from our vantage point; the problem is that he was seen as detestable from the vantage point of 1976 as well. Eight years is a long time in politics, but Democrats aren't going to be very likely to forgive and forget 1968 when he cost them the election against Nixon. (He did, too. Look a the polling. Every time Wallace drops, HHH gains while Nixon stays more or less steady.)
Yes, he showed that he had appeal throughout the country in 1964, 1968, and 1972. But 1976 is a different creature altogether. The concerns that led to whatever success Wallace had in those three years (busing and desegregation, namely) are not going to carry over to post-Watergate America, especially the Democratic Party at the time.Also note that in 1968 Wallace's support among blue-collar northerners was decimated by a targeted campaign by the AFL-CIO to remind their members of how antagonistic he was toward unions. That's going to carry over into the primaries as well.
Finally, remember why Carter won the nomination and the presidency. It wasn't just his "outsider" status; he ran on his integrity. No one in 1976 is going to mistake George Wallace for that same picture of integrity given that some of the rampant corruption he took part in in Alabama will almost certainly come to light. This will be the case even, or especially, if he changes his position on race relations. He's not going to have hippies to rail against anymore, really. Most of the people he badmouthed in 1968 are voters in 1976. The elements of social-upheaval and law & order won't be nearly as potent as they were in 1968 and 1972. Without those issues, what's his appeal to a national audience? Zero.
So there's three reasons why he would be despicable in 1976. 1) 1968 cost him the support of the party establishment, which IOTL he never won back; 2) his unpopular stances on unions and race relations are going to cost him dearly with Democratic primary voters outside of the South; 3) his national campaign will be defined by his Nixon-esque quest for power over the past two decades rather than integrity, and he won't even be able to change the topic to the topics where he would win because, in point of fact, nobody cared about them anymore.
If Wallace is ever going to win the nomination at the Democratic Convention, it will be by a hair's width, given there are simply not enough delegates I can see him easily accumulate that would put him over the top. This would become quite apparent as the last contests play out, and while Wallace is first, he still has a significant margin to overcome to make it to 50 plus 1. In that case, I find it infinitely more likely that on the first or second ballot, Edward Kennedy's name is introduced (with his support), in a bid to save the Party.
Even were he to make it to the General Election, he would have relative difficulty making his case to the more liberal voters whose support he would need; contrary to the opinion here, I don't see a Third Party run, if only because many ballots would have already been closed to a potential candidacy, and they would have to rush to meet others, which they would likely also fail to qualify for. Their best bet would be the Independent Candidacy of Eugene McCarthy but, given he had made quite a turn to the Right compared to his position eight years prior, the appeal might not be there either. Many Liberals might just simply sit the election out.
So, in my opinion, George Wallace was never going to win the Democratic Nomination (despite "winning" the primaries), and even if he had, he was going to face a serious uphill battle convincing undecideds to vote for him.
Even were he to make it to the General Election, he would have relative difficulty making his case to the more liberal voters whose support he would need; contrary to the opinion here, I don't see a Third Party run, if only because many ballots would have already been closed to a potential candidacy, and they would have to rush to meet others, which they would likely also fail to qualify for. Their best bet would be the Independent Candidacy of Eugene McCarthy but, given he had made quite a turn to the Right compared to his position eight years prior, the appeal might not be there either. Many Liberals might just simply sit the election out.
So, in my opinion, George Wallace was never going to win the Democratic Nomination (despite "winning" the primaries), and even if he had, he was going to face a serious uphill battle convincing undecideds to vote for him.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I think Wallace at any point winning the nomination is ASB. In 1976, he is in a wheelchair and has to compete with Jimmy Carter. Id he somehow did there would be a liberal third party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
A third party candidacy is not possible; a Wallace nomination (if we are to make it happen) would involve a battle at the National Convention, leaving little time for any Third Candidate getting on the ballot. McCarthy is the best they can do, and he was more of a Libertarian by that time.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
A possible Wallace nomination would be evident by June, at the latest. tThe any but Wallace has a national organization. traction what I know the filing deadlines are in September.
First, any effort put into stopping Wallace would go into the Convention, not into a Third Party effort that they may not even need (and again, it is virtually impossible for Wallace to amass the delegates nessecary to carry the nomination with ease).
Second, the process for getting on the ballot was far more strict compared to today. Wallace himself, when running in '68, had quite a few hurdles to go over, and he had quite a bit of organization behind him, and a much earlier start. Eugene McCarthy himself is the one that started the process of ballot liberalization, in the '76 election.
Suffice to say, a Third Party candidacy, even if starting in June, is not realistic, unless you consider states like California, New York, or Pennsylvania not important for such a campaign.
Second, the process for getting on the ballot was far more strict compared to today. Wallace himself, when running in '68, had quite a few hurdles to go over, and he had quite a bit of organization behind him, and a much earlier start. Eugene McCarthy himself is the one that started the process of ballot liberalization, in the '76 election.
Suffice to say, a Third Party candidacy, even if starting in June, is not realistic, unless you consider states like California, New York, or Pennsylvania not important for such a campaign.