WI: Nixon Avoids Watergate

With Nixon having pushed through a universal health care plan, though, would Reagan really be a viable candidate in 1976, railing against 'socialized medicine'? I realize it would work well for the base, but it may risk marginalizing the rest of the party

Historico said:
But wasn't '76 still a little early for Supply side economics, although it may have been around,cpnservative I would like to think that Reagan would have stuck to a classic GOP Fiscally Conservative economic plan. He may even raise taxes to try to get a balanced budget

Mark E. said:
A GOP win in 76 assures a democratic victory in 1980 because of economic factors. It would not matter what went on in Iran. Likewise, inflation will slow down in the eighties, with or without Reaganomics. The parties would have very different images over fiscal policy for decades to come, especially if Kennedy is elected in 80

Constantinople said:
Nixon would probably be seen as one of the better, or at least, effective presidents. If he continues detente and reforms healthcare, we might, as already said, have another republicans in 76

Dan Reilly said:
I'm guessing the economic situation in the late 70's probably kills reagans chances for re-election, combine that with some rather grissly news footage of the Sha's forces violently putting down protesters in Iran

Paul V McNutt said:
I think in bad economic times, the Republicans are at a sever disadvantage. Reagn would have to defend his controversal stands, such as opposition to Medicare. He would not be running against an unpopular incumbant

Emperor Norton I said:
I wanna switch trains of thought to healthcare since we discussed it but glossed over any details. Just how would this thing get passed and what concessions, if any, would Nixon have to make or Teddy have to make?

[heavy handed humour]Okay, ignoring all this boring economics and policy stuff, all of you guys agree with me that Nixon would still be sitting in the White House as God Emperor for Life if he'd just avoided Watergate, right?

I know this, as I've read a lot of books about how Dick was the consumate political professional.

He has an unbeatable electoral coalition remember, it transcends any political changes that might happen in so-called reality, just as he would've transcended life itself if that damned Woodward & Bernstein hadn't sabotaged him.:D[/heavy]
 
While Nixon may do far better, the GOP will be far worse off in its other elections. He essentially sacrificed efforts for them to do better in congressional and state elections, focusing the party machinery solely on getting re elected. The GOP lost pretty badly in 1970 midterms, and didn't even do that well in 72 even with Nixon's coattails.

Also the politics of division are going to be a bit different. Nixon may have used the southern strategy to get elected, but he championed affirmative action and made some concessions to American Indians. (Partly to cynically undermine claims he was a racist. Which we know he was, just listen to the Watergate Tapes.) I don't think wedge issues would have played out quite the same way in TTL. With the still-respected former US president who began AA around, how much harder is it for conservatives to raise it as a source of resentment?
 
Nixon can also just go on the offensive by dismissing aides immediately, replacing Mitchell with Rogers instead of Richardson, and cleaning up the sleaziness on his staff. Or just have the first bug work properly. Nixon wasn't the first POTUS to bug, just the first to be caught.
 
The funniest thing about it, I think, is that Nixon didn't even have to do Watergate to begin with; the combo of Democratic friction/facationalism, incumbency, & CREEP's "Rat-f***ing" operations, and a few other factors I can't remember ATM, had his re-election a near-foregone conclusion.
 
Top