There's some big untested assumptions in here. I'm not throwing flames at anyone or saying any ideas are wrong, just that they would need to be expanded on in terms of how they came about. Consider them points of discussion.
desmond hume said:
On the topic of Udall's running mate if he's nominated in '76: what about Udall/Carter? That could help Udall win in some parts of the South and have a good chance of winning the election, couldn't it?
Carter might deliver Georgia, as he did for himself in 1980 versus Reagan, but I don't see the appeal in the other Southern States when he's the VP candidate running with a liberal. Many white Southern voters would see Carter as a sell-out if he attached himself to a liberal ticket.
Carter's big push was based on his credentials as an evangelical and as a moderate, non-Washington politician. Also, Carter was the first credible candidate of a major party from the Deep South since 1848 (people from the Deep South didn't consider Texans to be "real" Southerners.)
Udall was a system insider. That would ruin Carter's claim of the moral high ground as the honest outsider. Again, a lot of erstwhile supporters would look at this arrangement as a sell-out by Carter.
Rouge Beaver said:
Probably the Iranian embassy is evacuated before Christmas 1978
Why? The staff was reduced in 1979 after the Shah was toppled as a precautionary measure, but it was considered important to maintain a U.S. diplomatic presence in Tehran. All of the civilian employees who were at that Embassy were working under contracts which specified they were in a hazardous zone. The military people - hazard is part of the job. (These are points that should have been made clear when the hostages were taken).
Also, would President Udall have resisted the pressure to bring the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment?
glenn67 said:
Michael Dukakis might argue that conclusion. I would too. There certainly would be a big fight in Texas, and it might certainly be close, but not a given.
plumber said:
Udall would win the West (read:California)... Udall would probably do better in the North as well. I wonder if Udall would win Utah because of religion...
Would he? And would California be enough? LBJ carried California in '64 against Goldwater, other than that it trended Republican from '52 to '84; even in 1976 when there wasn't a Californian on the Republican ticket. California's transition to a blue state was more gradual.
Would liberal Udall even carry his home state of Arizona? Arizona is a politically conservative State, and was even in the 1960's and 1970's. Arguably it was easier for conservative Barry Goldwater to rally the home folks around him in 1964, but would the state tilt the other way just because home stater Udall was at the head of the ticket?
Here's what I see, assuming a Udall-Carter ticket versus a Ford-Dole ticket, with no other differences from OTL; with the following points:
Carter helps the Democrats carry Georgia.
George Wallace refuses to endorse the Democratic ticket with a liberal at its head, which just about kills it in other parts of the South. Instead Wallace remains neutral, but lets it be known through surrogates that he prefers the Republicans, not because he likes President Ford, but because he considers him more "moderate" than Udall.
Udall carries much of the NE and the "rust belt", he even manages to crack NJ. He also makes a breakthrough in California and carries his home state of Arizona. He also wins in Oregon (which was very close OTL).
(The supposition for a Udall-Bentsen ticket would be: trade out Georgia for Texas, which gets to 270 Ford-Dole; 267 Udall-Bentsen; 1 Reagan-Dole; a much closer race.)