WI: Ford Doesn't Run in '76

[Chapman]

As the tin says, what if President Gerald Ford decides (for one reason or another) to sit out the 1976 Presidential Election? The obvious assumption is that Ronald Reagan, who very nearly defeated Ford in the Republican Primary for that cycle, would wind up becoming the GOP nominee. But if Ford isn't in the race, would others enter? Who's most likely to give it a shot? Would any of them be able to defeat Reagan, or would they actually split the vote and hand it to him? Does this have any impact on the Democratic Primary, or would Jimmy Carter still most likely end up their nominee? And finally, would Reagan (or any other Republican) be able to defeat Carter, or whoever the Democratic nominee is?

 

[Amadeus]

Had Ford not run, then Senator Chuck Percy and Vice President Rockefeller had planned to run instead. As in 1980, the moderate vote would be too divided to win and Reagan takes the nomination. That said, he loses easily to Jimmy Carter and the Reagan Revolution is strangled in it's cradle.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

I think you'd end up seeing a lot of the same faces from the 1980 primaries running 4 years earlier. Aside from Reagan, John Connally probably gets into the race, as do Baker, Anderson, and Crane. Kemp and Rockefeller probably round out the list. I don't see Bush giving up CIA to run for President in 1976. I don't think Reagan is a shoo-in for the nomination since a lot of his success that year came as the conservative alternative and the outsider running against the establishment Ford. If Rockefeller is the VP, and thus frontrunner, then maybe Reagan would still run a similar campaign. But he's going to be competing against other conservative figures, too, who might suck the oxygen out of that kind of candidacy.

Despite our collective memory of the primaries that year, Ford actually won the early states pretty convincingly. Ultimately, he won the majority of states and took 53% of the popular votes in those races. Those aren't great numbers for an incumbent, but Ford wasn't a typical incumbent. Truthfully, I think Ford's victory, however narrow, points to a moderate Republican winning the nomination rather than an appetite for conservatism with the deciding factor being which side lines up behind their candidate first. The point being that I don't think the GOP that year was the same one that would nominate Reagan four years later and that the race would be more competitive than we'd think on first blush.

The general election would be close, and if Carter is the man as in OTL then I think the GOP can win it. Carter was not an adept candidate and unless you can totally butterfly away things like the Playboy interview or his poor debate performances then it's going to be a toss-up by November. A couple of breaks his way and Reagan can walk away with the Electoral College if not the popular vote altogether.

 

[daveg1967]

I think you'd end up seeing a lot of the same faces from the 1980 primaries running 4 years earlier. Aside from Reagan, John Connally probably gets into the race, as do Baker, Anderson, and Crane. Kemp and Rockefeller probably round out the list. I don't see Bush giving up CIA to run for President in 1976. I don't think Reagan is a shoo-in for the nomination since a lot of his success that year came as the conservative alternative and the outsider running against the establishment Ford. If Rockefeller is the VP, and thus frontrunner, then maybe Reagan would still run a similar campaign. But he's going to be competing against other conservative figures, too, who might suck the oxygen out of that kind of candidacy.

Jack Kemp was a junior congressman in 1976. Take him off your list.

 

[Amadeus]

We should also be considering the reason behind Ford's decision. Is it poor health? Does he think he can't win? Does he simply not like being President? Is it due to outside political factors? The political effects of the decision could have a serious impact on the primaries and ultimately the GOP's choice in 1976.

 

[Chapman]

Jack Kemp was a junior congressman in 1976. Take him off your list.

I don't see why Kemp couldn't be on the list. With Reagan (among others) in the running, I don't think he would run, but his being a junior Congressman at the time isn't necessarily enough to say he couldn't decide to jump in.

We should also be considering the reason behind Ford's decision. Is it poor health? Does he think he can't win? Does he simply not like being President? Is it due to outside political factors? The political effects of the decision could have a serious impact on the primaries and ultimately the GOP's choice in 1976.

I guess if I was forced to pick one, I'd say maybe he just thinks he doesn't have a chance. After pardoning Nixon, he feels like he'll never be able to persuade enough voters that it was the right call, so in the interest of "healing the nation", he sits it out and lets others take a stab at it.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Whoever the GOP nominates--and I'm not convinced that Rockefeller would get it, although he's probably the favorite--will be in a neck-and-neck race down to the wire, assuming nothing else changes. As IOTL, it probably wouldn't be called until sometime on Wednesday morning, and would be a very slim margin for the winner. If the GOP candidate wins, that candidate may get sufficiently sound advice to take steps that at least mitigate the insane inflation of the Carter years, so that 1976 doesn't turn out to be a poisoned chalice. If Carter wins, I don't see things changing: whom he beat in the general election would have very little bearing if any on the conduct of his administration.

 

[CountDVB]

I think you'd end up seeing a lot of the same faces from the 1980 primaries running 4 years earlier. Aside from Reagan, John Connally probably gets into the race, as do Baker, Anderson, and Crane. Kemp and Rockefeller probably round out the list. I don't see Bush giving up CIA to run for President in 1976. I don't think Reagan is a shoo-in for the nomination since a lot of his success that year came as the conservative alternative and the outsider running against the establishment Ford. If Rockefeller is the VP, and thus frontrunner, then maybe Reagan would still run a similar campaign. But he's going to be competing against other conservative figures, too, who might suck the oxygen out of that kind of candidacy.

Despite our collective memory of the primaries that year, Ford actually won the early states pretty convincingly. Ultimately, he won the majority of states and took 53% of the popular votes in those races. Those aren't great numbers for an incumbent, but Ford wasn't a typical incumbent. Truthfully, I think Ford's victory, however narrow, points to a moderate Republican winning the nomination rather than an appetite for conservatism with the deciding factor being which side lines up behind their candidate first. The point being that I don't think the GOP that year was the same one that would nominate Reagan four years later and that the race would be more competitive than we'd think on first blush.

The general election would be close, and if Carter is the man as in OTL then I think the GOP can win it. Carter was not an adept candidate and unless you can totally butterfly away things like the Playboy interview or his poor debate performances then it's going to be a toss-up by November. A couple of breaks his way and Reagan can walk away with the Electoral College if not the popular vote altogether.

Yeah though those four years make a difference. Reagan winning in that poison chalice of a year known as 1976 will screw over the GOP big time when it starts hitting the fan. I wonder if this means that if Reagan and his associates wouldn't run in 1980 and beyond due to the ongoing strife and so on. This does mean the Dems would win 1980, at least very likely

 

[Anchises]

Whoever the GOP nominates--and I'm not convinced that Rockefeller would get it, although he's probably the favorite--will be in a neck-and-neck race down to the wire, assuming nothing else changes. As IOTL, it probably wouldn't be called until sometime on Wednesday morning, and would be a very slim margin for the winner. If the GOP candidate wins, that candidate may get sufficiently sound advice to take steps that at least mitigate the insane inflation of the Carter years, so that 1976 doesn't turn out to be a poisoned chalice. If Carter wins, I don't see things changing: whom he beat in the general election would have very little bearing if any on the conduct of his administration.

Interesting. I always wondered if 1976 has to be a poisoned chalice or if Carter simply failed.

Could a more talented President turn 1976 into "meh" instead of the poisoned chalice of OTL?

 

[Amadeus]

Interesting. I always wondered if 1976 has to be a poisoned chalice or if Carter simply failed.

Could a more talented President turn 1976 into "meh" instead of the poisoned chalice of OTL?

Had FDR failed, everybody would say, "the guy did his best, but 1932 was a poisoned chalice and no one could've succeeded." Ditto for Lincoln in 1860. In my opinion Carter wasn't cut out for political leadership and he simply failed. He had numerous advisors and Congressmen pressing him to make better decisions that could've made the situation better, but he stubbornly refused their council and ultimately he paid the political price in 1980.

 

[Anchises]

Had FDR failed, everybody would say, "the guy did his best, but 1932 was a poisoned chalice and no one could've succeeded." Ditto for Lincoln in 1860. In my opinion Carter wasn't cut out for political leadership and he simply failed. He had numerous advisors and Congressmen pressing him to make better decisions that could've made the situation better, but he stubbornly refused their council and ultimately he paid the political price in 1980.

That is my impression too. I haven't really researched Carter's term but just saying everybody would have been doomed to fail seems a little easy.

Sure '76 wouldn't have been a dream term for any POTUS. A better politician could have certainly managed affairs better though.

I know for a fact that Carter botched Iran and I am inclined to belief that he misshandled the inflation.

The "Reagan or any other Republican would have botched '76" seems like a trope born out of symphaty for Carter. Sure, Carter's vision was beautiful and the Reagan-Revolution has a lot of questionable elements but in ATLs Reagan might still be reelected in '80.

 

[David T]

I don't see why Kemp couldn't be on the list. With Reagan (among others) in the running, I don't think he would run, but his being a junior Congressman at the time isn't necessarily enough to say he couldn't decide to jump in.

It's not just that he was a junior Congressman; it's that he was quite obscure, and to the extent he was thought of at all (apart from his football background) it was as a Reagan devotee with no notable ideas of his own. It was only after 1976 when Jude Wanniski introduced him to supply-side economics and especially after 1977, when the first Kemp-Roth bill was introduced, that Kemp got national attention. Even then, it was widely assumed that he would run in 1980 only if Reagan didn't...

 

[Chapman]

It's not just that he was a junior Congressman; it's that he was quite obscure, and to the extent he was thought of at all (apart from his football background) it was as a Reagan devotee with no notable ideas of his own. It was only after 1976 when Jude Wanniski introduced him to supply-side economics and especially after 1977, when the first Kemp-Roth bill was introduced, that Kemp got national attention. Even then, it was widely assumed that he would run in 1980 only if Reagan didn't...

Honestly, my point was more that "take him off your list" on its own isn't a terribly productive statement and really just felt more snarky than anything. Your version makes much more sense and is far more reasonable, though.

 

[Amadeus]

The "Reagan or any other Republican would have botched '76" seems like a trope born out of symphaty for Carter. Sure, Carter's vision was beautiful and the Reagan-Revolution has a lot of questionable elements but in ATLs Reagan might still be reelected in '80.

I doubt it. The GOP would've held the White House for 12 years by that point. And many people forget that Reaganomics, when actually applied, caused a sharp recession in 1982 that put many people out of work and saw Reagan's approval rating plummet to 35%. By 1983 Reagan was expected to be a one termer; he was only saved from this fate because of Paul Volcker's monetary policies. Without Carter you don't get Volcker, instead you get someone more like Alan Greenspan who Reagan appointed to the Fed in 1987. By 1980 the economy is not only in the tank but worse than under Carter. Reagan would lose in a landslide and be remembered as a latter-day Herbert Hoover.

 

[Anchises]

I doubt it. The GOP would've held the White House for 12 years by that point. And many people forget that Reaganomics, when actually applied, caused a sharp recession in 1982 that put many people out of work and saw Reagan's approval rating plummet to 35%. By 1983 Reagan was expected to be a one termer; he was only saved from this fate because of Paul Volcker's monetary policies. Without Carter you don't get Volcker, instead you get someone more like Alan Greenspan who Reagan appointed to the Fed in 1987. By 1980 the economy is not only in the tank but worse than under Carter. Reagan would lose in a landslide and be remembered as a latter-day Herbert Hoover.

Best for the GOP certainly would be a centrist-moderate Republican.

Don't get me wrong, Reagonomics were a disaster, especially in the long term. Short term slashing taxes and raising state expenditures (military) is bound to create some growth though

 

[David T]

I think you'd end up seeing a lot of the same faces from the 1980 primaries running 4 years earlier. Aside from Reagan, John Connally probably gets into the race, as do Baker, Anderson, and Crane. Kemp and Rockefeller probably round out the list. I don't see Bush giving up CIA to run for President in 1976. I don't think Reagan is a shoo-in for the nomination since a lot of his success that year came as the conservative alternative and the outsider running against the establishment Ford. If Rockefeller is the VP, and thus frontrunner, then maybe Reagan would still run a similar campaign. But he's going to be competing against other conservative figures, too, who might suck the oxygen out of that kind of candidacy.

Despite our collective memory of the primaries that year, Ford actually won the early states pretty convincingly. Ultimately, he won the majority of states and took 53% of the popular votes in those races. Those aren't great numbers for an incumbent, but Ford wasn't a typical incumbent. Truthfully, I think Ford's victory, however narrow, points to a moderate Republican winning the nomination rather than an appetite for conservatism with the deciding factor being which side lines up behind their candidate first. The point being that I don't think the GOP that year was the same one that would nominate Reagan four years later and that the race would be more competitive than we'd think on first blush.

The general election would be close, and if Carter is the man as in OTL then I think the GOP can win it. Carter was not an adept candidate and unless you can totally butterfly away things like the Playboy interview or his poor debate performances then it's going to be a toss-up by November. A couple of breaks his way and Reagan can walk away with the Electoral College if not the popular vote altogether.

(1) Ford's two early primary victories, which established him as GOP front-runner, were actually pretty narrow--49.43 to 47.97 in NH and 52.80 to 47.20 in FL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976 To say that those are poor numbers for an incumbent president is to put it mildly. Remember the fuss when LBJ "only" won NH 50-42 against Eugene McCarthy's write-in candidacy in 1968! Ford did well in the Illinois primary, but that was never one of Reagan's stronger states, despite being his state of birth. Then came North Carolina...

(2) Remember that not all conservatives supported Reagan against Ford: Barry Goldwater for example eventually came out for Ford: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/01/...by-goldwater-gold-water-gives-support-to.html James Buckley also supported Ford. https://books.google.com/books?id=ud9bCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 I think the reason that some conservatives backed Ford over Reagan was obvious: he was the incumbent president, he had a pretty conservative record in Congress, and as president he was more conservative than Nixon, especially on economic issues. Moreover, his pardon of Nixon, however unpopular with the electorate as a whole, helped him with conservative Republicans. Yet in spite of all that, he lost to Reagan by landslide margins in much of the South and West. IMO no other moderate or moderate-conservative Republican would have gotten anything like even the limited conservative support Ford did.

(3) The non-conservative GOP vote would IMO be much more seriously split than the conservative vote. I don't think Reagan would have any serious rivals for the conservatives. Connally was distrusted by many conservatives as a recent Democratic convert. Crane was a failure in 1980 because he was running as a younger Ronald Reagan--and conservatives were quite satisfied with the old Ronald Ragan. This would also be true in 1976--indeed Reagan's age would be even less of an issue.

IMO Reagan wins the nomination fairly easily. November, I agree, is likely to be close, but on the while I think Carter would be favored (I think Reagan would win a lot of "wasted" votes--e.g., winning California by a landslide which means no more in the Electoral College than Ford's narrow victory there).

 

[David T]

Whoever the GOP nominates--and I'm not convinced that Rockefeller would get it, although he's probably the favorite--will be in a neck-and-neck race down to the wire, assuming nothing else changes.

I don't think Rockefeller has the slightest chance of getting the nomination. Remember that Gerald Ford was too far to the left for 46 percent of Republican voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

 

[Chapman]

I don't think Rockefeller has the slightest chance of getting the nomination. Remember that Gerald Ford was too far to the left for 46 percent of Republican voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

Might this be the scenario in which we see a Reagan/Rocky ticket? Or would Rockefeller not be interested in serving as VP again?

 

[David T]

Might this be the scenario in which we see a Reagan/Rocky ticket? Or would Rockefeller not be interested in serving as VP again?

Rocky was actually John Sears' first choice for VP in OTL. As I posted here some time ago:

***
But Sears' real first choice is shocking--Nelson Rockefeller! When asked what the reaction of Helms and other conservatives would be, Sears replied "They would have come off the ceiling in a day or two." Sears added, "I thought very strongly that he [Rockefeller] would have liked the irony of it, and he had firm control of his delegates. And, Mrs. Reagan liked him a lot. But you couldn't trust that others wouldn't talk him out of it, and you couldn't take that chance."

"Although Rockefeller controlled Dick Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum controlled the vast majority of the New York delegation, it is unknown whether delegates would have gone along with them and supported Reagan had Rockefeller joined the ticket. Still, it was no secret that Rockefeller and Rosenbaum were angry and dismayed over the treatment afforded Rockefeller by Ford and the President Ford Committee. The question is whether Reagan could hold his conservative delegates in the face of such a selection..." https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA273

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/whos-the-vp.379829/#post-11909568

***

I still don't get why, if Sears' concern was that Rocky might not accept, he didn't send some trusted go-between to sound Rocky out (and really this is Rocky's last chance to stay in politics and even be a heartbeat away from the presidency--how likely is it that he will turn that down?). Remember, though, this offer, even if made, would be made at a time Reagan was trailing Ford in delegates. He desperately needed a VP choice that would win some delegates over (in this case the New York delegation). In this ATL where Ford doesn't run, I think Reagan will have a clear lead in delegates and will see no need to do something that risky (in terms of alienating his conservative supporters).

 

[fscott]

Had FDR failed, everybody would say, "the guy did his best, but 1932 was a poisoned chalice and no one could've succeeded." Ditto for Lincoln in 1860. In my opinion Carter wasn't cut out for political leadership and he simply failed. He had numerous advisors and Congressmen pressing him to make better decisions that could've made the situation better, but he stubbornly refused their council and ultimately he paid the political price in 1980.

But luckily he had any behind him to keep you informed special in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.