WI: Mo Udall wins the Democratic nomination in 1976

Zioneer

Banned
Possibly, but not all in the same administration. Since 1967 it has been illegal for presidential family members to serve in Cabinet, a direct consequence of RFK's tenure as AG and his feud with Johnson.

Plus, his relatives who are OTL political figures would be too young for Congress or even House of Reps around the time Mo launched his career, if Wikipedia is telling the truth with their ages.

Hmm... what OTL political figures would he favor during his presidency?
 
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?
 
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?

Maybe. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas would be another possibility (which could open up some interesting butterflies for Bill Clinton, seeing as with his national ambitions, he'd probably have wanted to be a senator had something opened up; instead, David Pryor grabbed the only open seat to come up OTL).
 
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:
Bentsen guarantees Texas

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.)

Udall1976.PNG
 
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.



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.



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?



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.



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.)

You make some good points, but in looking at presidential elections, it's important to look at the macro picture and not fixate too closely on state-by-state results. The fact is that '76 was a Democratic-trending year, coming after eight years of Republican rule, high inflation, a recession, and anger over Watergate.

Obviously, nobody knows what kind of campaign Udall would have run. And Ford ran a fairly strong one OTL. But Carter's fall campaign was enormously gaffe-prone, which is why he wound up blowing an enormous lead. It isn't crazy to think that Udall could beat Ford by 5-6 points, which would make an Electoral College win very likely.

As for the West, considering Ford only barely won the West Coast states, a stronger-than-Carter run by Udall could carry them, as well as Nevada, New Mexico, and maybe Colorado, though you're right that Arizona would be a stretch.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Obviously, nobody knows what kind of campaign Udall would have run. And Ford ran a fairly strong one OTL. But Carter's fall campaign was enormously gaffe-prone, which is why he wound up blowing an enormous lead. It isn't crazy to think that Udall could beat Ford by 5-6 points, which would make an Electoral College win very likely.

Udall was supposed to be witty and easy-going, so there's that.

In any case, if I wrote a Udall TL, for a PoD, maybe it would have Carter make one too many gaffes?

How would the Ford vs. Udall campaign go in terms of rhertoic?

Also, fun fact; the Democratic primaries that Udall lost? There were in Wisconsin. Chat comes full circle. :p
 
Is it possible to have Jimmy Carter become McGovern's Running Mate? He did lobby for the position before, after he opposed McGovern of course. If he wasn't so vocal in the beginning, maybe he would have a chance. Being connected with McGovern would likely kill any chance he would have of winning in '76.
 
Too junior, only a freshman governor. Remember that he had led the ABM forces before Larry O'Brien brought the whole thing crashing down by upholding the California results.
 
Too junior, only a freshman governor. Remember that he had led the ABM forces before Larry O'Brien brought the whole thing crashing down by upholding the California results.

Well, in that case, how determined was he in running for the Presidency? He could possibly just decide to NOT run given his perceived low chances at even gaining the nomination over other candidates such as Jackson, Bayh, Wallace, etc.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Well, in that case, how determined was he in running for the Presidency? He could possibly just decide to NOT run given his perceived low chances at even gaining the nomination over other candidates such as Jackson, Bayh, Wallace, etc.

Or perhaps have Carter have some sort of health problem before the election that lasts long enough to keep him out of the race, but is not fatal or completely crippling.
 
I don't agree that Udall would pick Carter as his running mate. I don't really see the benefits of it. Picking Carter would be very much an 'amplification' strategy and I'm not sure if that would be a wise choice, even in post-Watergate 1976. As a Senator, Udall could get away with Carter, but as a member of the House he would probably need to show that he had some kind of national security/'ready-to-be-president' meat behind him. Carter does not deliver that, and in fact would probably be a negative on that count. If you're going for a southerner, Bentsen would be a better choice.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps have Carter have some sort of health problem before the election that lasts long enough to keep him out of the race, but is not fatal or completely crippling.

During the Democratic Primaries Carter made some off-the-cuff comment about ethnic clusters in some large cities in the North, and talked about programs aimed at "ethnic purity." Some took that to mean he was racist, though he quickly covered it by indicating that he meant programs concentrated on ethnic communities as they were as opposed to enforcing diversity, which he saw as a liberal fantasy, given actual population distribution at the time. It was a needless controversy that hurt Carter, but never seriously side-lined him.

What if, some other candidate were to tie Carter's "ethnic purity" comment to his statements that he would never accept support from the "block vote" in the 1970 Georgia Governor's race to imply that Carter had a more Wallace-like agenda on race relations? (For some reason that never happened, and Carter got a pass on some of the more questionable things he said in the Georgia governors races he ran in 1966 and 1970).

Or Carter says something completely stupid, such as his famous "I lusted after other women in my heart" statement during the OTL General campaign. Perhaps he loses his temper at a press conference and uses foul language in public, which would instantly ruin his Mr. Clean image.
 
I don't agree that Udall would pick Carter as his running mate. I don't really see the benefits of it. Picking Carter would be very much an 'amplification' strategy and I'm not sure if that would be a wise choice, even in post-Watergate 1976. As a Senator, Udall could get away with Carter, but as a member of the House he would probably need to show that he had some kind of national security/'ready-to-be-president' meat behind him. Carter does not deliver that, and in fact would probably be a negative on that count. If you're going for a southerner, Bentsen would be a better choice.

I agree that Bentsen would be a better choice, and if they could win Texas that would put the Udall-Bentsen ticket that much closer to winning in the EC.
 
I agree though that as a westerner, Udall is going to be much better placed to win there than Carter. Whether that is enough to compensate for the probable loss of the Deep South and/or Texas to Ford ITTL depends on how close the race gets. If Udall can maintain a healthy lead going into the election, then he is probably going to sweep the west, some of the other states Carter lost such as Iowa and Illinois, and win the election, even assuming he loses Texas.

Much the same applies, incidentally, if Jerry Brown were the nominee. No Carter for the Democrats doesn't render the Democratic position half as fragile as it might first appear on the map.
 
Possibly, but not all in the same administration. Since 1967 it has been illegal for presidential family members to serve in Cabinet, a direct consequence of RFK's tenure as AG and his feud with Johnson.

Really? I seem to recall some news outlets asking "W", if he would appoint Jeb AG. One would think if it were illegal they wouldn't even pose the question. Then again, the news these days doesn't seem to need "all the facts."

W's answer was one, perhaps the only quote from him I ever liked, "My brother has never been a lawyer, so I don't think he's qualified."
 
Really? I seem to recall some news outlets asking "W", if he would appoint Jeb AG. One would think if it were illegal they wouldn't even pose the question. Then again, the news these days doesn't seem to need "all the facts."

W's answer was one, perhaps the only quote from him I ever liked, "My brother has never been a lawyer, so I don't think he's qualified."

In that circumstance W was bang on - Jeb isn't an attorney, so he's not qualified for the job (based on skills) however, strangely, there's no absolute qualification that an AG has to be an attorney.

However, a President may not appoint relatives period. This law was enacted after JFK appointed his brother AG, and appointed a brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, to another Executive Branch post.

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 31 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 3110

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00003110----000-.html


(3) “relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b) A public official (including the President) may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.
 
Operation Sea Lion (any possible chance for victory?)

I have been working on an alternate ending Novel that involves Operation Sea Lion. I have studied every possible military scenario, and I have yet to find a possible way for the German military to achieve victory.
 
Top