What if Ronald Reagan Won In 1976?

What if Reagan managed to beat Gerald Ford in the Republican primaries/convention? The PoD could be that he doesn't promise to pick Schweiker, but I;m not sure that'd be enough given Ford already had a lead in delegates, which is why Reagan made the gamble to promise to pick Schweiker.

Anyway, let's say for the sake of this scenario he wins the general election. While there is a case to be made Reagan would have lost, I think that his charisma and his lack of Ford's weaknesses, as well as strong support in the South that could potentially get key electoral votes, means a Reagan has about a 50-50 chance of winning, IMO. I'm not a Reaganite, but I think his political opponents almost always underestimated him, at least his political strength. So, he wins a narrow victory, no more than 300 EVs but not so close that his legitimacy as President can be called into question.

However, Reagan's presidency would probably go worse than his OTL one. How would he deal with stagflation? Could he pass tax cuts through Congress? How would he handle foreign policy? What would happen in Iran? Given the challenges of the era, could an earlier Reagan presidency ironically hurt conservatism and help liberalism? What if?
 
I think the Democrats would succeed in calling Reagan Goldwater mark 2.

He would likely have lost by more than Ford.

This would have butterflied his nomination in 80
 
I think the Democrats would succeed in calling Reagan Goldwater mark 2.

He would likely have lost by more than Ford.

This would have butterflied his nomination in 80

Perhaps, but also Reagan could overcome those attacks given his views were gaining popularity and portray himself as an outsider, but more experienced than Carter, and use his charisma to get a narrow victory. I'm not saying that's the definite outcome, but it would be plausible to use that in making a TL about Presdient Reagan in 1976.
 
If Reagan's elected, most likely just as you suggest he faces the same headwinds as Carter, and conservatism is discredited at least for a time.
 
Ironically, Reagan getting the nomination in '76 over Ford is the POD for my Ford wins in '80 TL. I think, given how bad the GOP was hurt not only by Watergate, but by the economy, and their will be moderate Republicans flocking to Carter, I believe Reagan would do worse than Ford did.

If by SOME miracle he does win the general, he has the same problems Carter did, only Reagan makes some of them worse, and I think you would have a Democratic President elected in 1980 and possibly '84 as a result.
 
But . . .

all of Reagan's instincts were Keynesian, and to me, that's a good thing.

And this used to be economic orthodoxy, not so much anymore. It is with me. I still think the single most important number is economic growth. A mature industrial economy should grow by about 3% a year.

Then we get into the question of what's more important to address, inflation or unemployment? And somehow inflation is viewed as the mature, adult thing to address, whereas worrying about unemployment is viewed as some kind of emotive response. That's not exactly my view!

So, let's say with military Keynesianism and tax-cut Keynesianism, Reagan improves the economy pretty much as he did OTL, just earlier.

And let's say he gets lucky with the Shah of Iran. The Reagan luck just holds up. For example, the Shah feels okay about a successor and decides to enjoy his later years.

So, the economy's alright but not great. Reagan has only haltingly gone along with Congress on energy policy. But he's remember as a reasonably successful one-term president. A Democrat wins a somewhat close 1980 election.
 
But . . .

all of Reagan's instincts were Keynesian, and to me, that's a good thing.

And this used to be economic orthodoxy, not so much anymore. It is with me. I still think the single most important number is economic growth. A mature industrial economy should grow by about 3% a year.

Then we get into the question of what's more important to address, inflation or unemployment? And somehow inflation is viewed as the mature, adult thing to address, whereas worrying about unemployment is viewed as some kind of emotive response. That's not exactly my view!

So, let's say with military Keynesianism and tax-cut Keynesianism, Reagan improves the economy pretty much as he did OTL, just earlier.

And let's say he gets lucky with the Shah of Iran. The Reagan luck just holds up. For example, the Shah feels okay about a successor and decides to enjoy his later years.

So, the economy's alright but not great. Reagan has only haltingly gone along with Congress on energy policy. But he's remember as a reasonably successful one-term president. A Democrat wins a somewhat close 1980 election.

Does a narrow Reagan win in '76 flip some house and Senate races to the GOP? With massive Democratic gains in the '74 midterms and more Democratic gains in '76, Carter had a huge majority from '77-78. I don't think Reagan would get anything done with that, keep in mind the GOP controlled the senate for 6 of the 8 years he was President OTL ('81-'87) and the Dem gains of 74 and 76 OTL were somewhat reversed in 1978 and 1980 OTL.
 
But . . .

all of Reagan's instincts were Keynesian, and to me, that's a good thing.

And this used to be economic orthodoxy, not so much anymore. It is with me. I still think the single most important number is economic growth. A mature industrial economy should grow by about 3% a year.

Then we get into the question of what's more important to address, inflation or unemployment? And somehow inflation is viewed as the mature, adult thing to address, whereas worrying about unemployment is viewed as some kind of emotive response. That's not exactly my view!

So, let's say with military Keynesianism and tax-cut Keynesianism, Reagan improves the economy pretty much as he did OTL, just earlier.

And let's say he gets lucky with the Shah of Iran. The Reagan luck just holds up. For example, the Shah feels okay about a successor and decides to enjoy his later years.

So, the economy's alright but not great. Reagan has only haltingly gone along with Congress on energy policy. But he's remember as a reasonably successful one-term president. A Democrat wins a somewhat close 1980 election.

Perhaps but if Reagan is successful he could be re-elected. Also, I doubt he'd be able to pass tax cuts, given Congress was to Carter's left, never mind Reagan's. Also, military Keynesianism is rather dubious, given that the militsay doesn't actually produce wealth for society and is not very useful. I think Reagan would have a much harder time getting his agenda passed 4 years early.
 
I don't see him winning. There is his unpopular views like Medicare and he is off the President's party in bad economic times. Just ask John McCain. However if he did, he would still face a Democratic Congress and have to make compromises. Conservatives would be disappointed. He lets the Shah in. So there is still a hostage crisis. There is still a 1980 recession. He is a one term president.
 
I don't see him winning. There is his unpopular views like Medicare and he is off the President's party in bad economic times. Just ask John McCain. However if he did, he would still face a Democratic Congress and have to make compromises. Conservatives would be disappointed. He lets the Shah in. So there is still a hostage crisis. There is still a 1980 recession. He is a one term president.

I agree that there is no way Reagan could win as he was a conservative in a time when many Americans saw them as stooges of Nixon.

However, if Watergate is not revealed, then Reagan may be able to win the nomination of the Republican Party in 1976 as Nixon and by extension the GOP would remain popular. Then, his victory is very possible.
 
The important thing to remember is that *if* Reagan is elected (which I doubt) it will be by a much narrower margin than OTL's 1980 and he will face a *much* more Democratic and less conservative Congress than he did in 1980. Hence it is going to be very difficult for him to get his economic program through Congress. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95th_United_States_Congress for how overwhelmingly Democratic the Congress was; having the Republicans win the presidency very narrowly instead of losing it very narrowly is not gong to change it very much.
 
Does a narrow Reagan win in '76 flip some house and Senate races to the GOP? With massive Democratic gains in the '74 midterms and more Democratic gains in '76, Carter had a huge majority from '77-78. I don't think Reagan would get anything done with that, keep in mind the GOP controlled the senate for 6 of the 8 years he was President OTL ('81-'87) and the Dem gains of 74 and 76 OTL were somewhat reversed in 1978 and 1980 OTL.
I think the 1975 tax bill between Ford and Congress was a tax cut to stimulate the economy. It had the modest beginnings of the Earned Income Credit.

Look, just like when the human body is not doing well, funky things can be going on. So, I don't think it's that much a stretch that an underperforming economy can have both inflation and unemployment. All the same, I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL ECONOMIST. I'm just a person who's pretty good at persistently asking questions. And I ask all of us, please keep asking questions, too. :)
 
Last edited:
Does a narrow Reagan win in '76 flip some house and Senate races to the GOP?

Not very many--especially in the Senate. There were few really narrow Demcoratic victories in the 1976 Senate elections. The only Democrat to win by less than 4.9 percentage points was Howard Metzenbaum who defeated Taft by three points in Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1976 And I doubt that Reagan will do much better--if at all better--than Ford in Ohio. If there is anywhere he is going to do substantially better than Ford it is in the South and West--but there weren't any really narrow Senate Democratic victories there.

Even if the House is slightly more Republican under Reagan than it was under Carter, it might not be any more *conservative* because the Democrats most likely to be defeated would be southern and southwestern conservatives. For example, Bob Stump might lose in Arizona--but he later switched to the GOP anyway. In Georgia, John J. Flynt might lose to Newt Gingrich ahead of schedule, but Flynt was pretty conservative and Gingrich had the background of a Rockefeller Republican... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1976
 
Reagan and a Democratic Congress would be unlikely to agree on entitlement reform, but perhaps increased spending on infrastructure?
 
Top