Given how quickly the Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton impeachments unfolded, Nixon's trial before the Senate could have been over by the spring or summer of 1975, giving the Ford administration at least some time to put Watergate behind it and even emerging with some credit for not issuing a pardon. Who knows? By the time Nixon appears in the well of the Senate to defend himself (1) his congressional prosecutors might have looked a little vindictive and the public might have begun to tire of a scandal that was already three years old. (2)
1) AIUI that's not how Senate Trials work. The House Impeachment Managers present the Articles of Impeachment and the evidence upon which the House determined their simple majority voted. Then the Senate holds a debate, and votes on each Article of Impeachment. AFAIK, there is no calling of witnesses as in the House, the Chief Justice merely presides without any real power, and each Senator has equal power within the well of the Senate. Seniority does NOT rule in a Senate Trial, nor any Senatorial offices, committee chairmanships, or Senate rank.
2) Monica-gate was no comparison to Watergate. A symphony of crimes and conspiracies committed by Nixon and his henchmen. Monica-gate was a conspiracy of TWO, and over a series of blowjobs. Watergate was a direct threat to American Democracy. Monica-gate was payback by a vengeful mob of highly paid and well-financed political hacks who were hoisted on their own petard, thanks to the only hero in that sorry tale: Larry Flynt!
I think you underestimate the lasting damage the pardon did to the US Government. As Herblock (3) put it in his political biography of Nixon 'After Nixon Resigned, we [the American Public] told ourselves "It was awful, but the system worked." Then the pardon came an we realized: "No, it doesn't work after all."' Most Americans were ready for Nixon to be tried and punished. A trial would have been acrimonious, but at the same time, cathartic. Trust in government wouldn't have had the cratering it took after the pardon. It has never recovered since. (4)
Ford might win in '76. (5) But stagflation was already kicking in - Ford's WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now) was as fruitless as you can imagine. (6) Reagan will be completely butterflied away. (7)
3) Not always right about things (though he seemed to manage to be treated so), but he was on this point.
4) Agreed. I was a Nixon Loyalist to the end (Hey! I was 13, what did I know? It's not like I could use Google!). His resignation was taken as a confession by me. I was humiliated.
5) Narrow chance, maybe. But unlikely. The Dems were vindicated about Nixon, and Carter represent the Perfect Storm of a winning candidate.
6)
7) Reagan represented the Far Right of the GOP. He and they had nothing to do with Watergate, and in 1980 REAGAN was the Perfect Storm of a candidate. He who wins in 1976 LOSES in 1980. Period.
If Ford doesn't take one for the team and pardon Nixon, and lets the GOP suffer the public humiliation of a Nixon trial, he won't be renominated.
It doesn't matter if the voting public hates Nixon and wants to see a trial -- the sort of petty apparatchiks who sit on GOP nomination committees don't, and they have the final say. They want Reagan anyway -- he's a much better public speaker, and can navigate stairs without falling down. Ford will be quietly told not to seek re-election, and Reagan will be put on the ballot.
Ford may "be told" not to seek re-election, but he is still the President of the United States and Leader of the Republican Party. The Primary election system was already well formed by 1976. Its anybody's guess whether Reagan ITTL beats Ford, but Ford WILL run.
Carter of 1976 is NOT Carter of 1980. His campaign was years in the making, and absolutely flawless. The ultimate "outsider" candidate. Even more so than Reagan.
but the 1977 economy is too broken for him to fix,
Not to mention the economy of 1979-1981. He who wins in 1976 loses in 1980.
and he loses to Kennedy in 1980
On the tenth anniversary of Chappaquiddick? Its not well known today, but the local coroner "remembered" where he lost some critical files about Mary Jo's drowning when Kennedy's C-o-S told the coroner that his son would NOT be getting a sought after political patronage job.
You can't judge the outcome of an ATL primary where there is no incumbent POTUS seeking re-election.
He does arrange for Khomeni to be assassinated in Paris ;
I think you're channeling Nixon + Kissinger and calling them "Reagan".
after the Shah of Iran dies, his son Reza Pahlavi retains power and there's no hostage crisis.
You do realize that he was a small child when the Shah died of pancreatic cancer and is a complete idiot? When the Shah fled, he took the Fear with him. His death would do the same.
I could see Ford easily winning in 1976.
He'd have a shot, but after Watergate the thought of four more years of a Republican president (one picked by Nixon, whatever happened in the corridors of power) rather than starting fresh with a clean slated Democratic governor with a good record would still be an uphill struggle.
That means no President Carter and no President Reagan. Reagan runs and loses in 1980. He is running in a time of recession and hostage crisis as a member of the president's party. His opponent would not be playing defense. The Democratic nominee would have more time to use Reagan's unpopular views like his opposition to Medicare. The Republicans do better in the 1974 midterms. Gary Hart still wins. Since there was no pardon for resignation deal, Nixon still resigns on August 8, 1974. He is indicted and goes on trail in 1975. He did have some serious health issues in late 1974, I wonder if the stress of a guilty veridic might kill him.
I'm starting to see a pattern here on this thread:
a) Jail Nixon
b) Elect Ford
c) Get rid of Carter
d) Get rid of Reagan
e) Defeat Ford for re-election
f) Elect Kennedy or Gary Hart
If wishes were horses...
