What's weird is that although both Ford and Reagan entered office when the economy sucked, Reagan was able to take enough credit for the following recovery to get re-elected while Ford wasn't. It's true that Ford had the pardon as an albatross and he probably would've won without it. But it's not like Reagan didn't do things that were controversial.
There was probably also some party fatigue as well as the GOP were in the Presidency for 8 years by 1976, whereas there wasn't when Reagan got re elected in 1984. Plus the recovery was more noticeable in 1984 than it was in 76. Hell, the economy was technically in recovery in 1992, yet 41 still lost.
 
I agree to, given how close Ford came to winning with the Pardon and Reagan's primary challenge around his neck. If anything, Reagan would be favored.

Using the Keys to the White House Model, I'd give him:

  1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections: 0, 1974 is likely to be a Democratic year
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination: 1, Reagan will be more conservative than some of the Rockefeller Republicans prefer, but not enough to result in a primary challenge
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president: 1, self-explanatory
  4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign: 1, Reagan is likely conservative enough to bring most Wallace voters into the Republican fold
  5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign: 1, there was no recession during the election campaign
  6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms: 0, even if the oil crisis does not unfold exactly as it did IOTL, you would still probably have a weak economy throughout most of the 1970s.
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy: 0, Reagan is likely to be working with a Democratic Congress that will resist any major conservative legislation.
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term: 1, the urban riots of the late 1960s will have died down
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal: 1, no Nixon, no Watergate (as an aside, I wonder what Roger Stone is up to ITTL)
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs: 1, a stronger president is likely to prevent the passage of the Case-Church Amendment
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs: 0, Assuming President Humphrey signs a peace deal shortly after taking office, Reagan won't get credit for Peace in Vietnam, and he's unlikely to go to China
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero: 1, Reagan's the Great Communicator, and potentially a more effective campaigner than in 1984 for being younger and in better health.
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero: 0, given that the POD in the original post occurs on the eve of the election, RFK presumably dies the same as IOTL, and no one else in the Democratic party during this era would meet the qualification.
 
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero: 0, given that the POD in the original post occurs on the eve of the election, RFK presumably dies the same as IOTL, and no one else in the Democratic party during this era would meet the qualification.

Without Watergate, the 1976 Democratic nominee probably wouldn't be Carter. Who might it be instead? Jackson? Udall? Even if Chappaquiddick doesn't happen due to butterflies, Ted Kennedy would have second thoughts about a run in '76 since he is up for re-election to the Senate the same year.
 
Why no watergate analogue? It's Reagan. The only reason there wasn't a watergate 2.0 bc of IRan contra was due to the party brass learning about how democrats would only use their being "Honorable" against them.
 
Without Watergate, the 1976 Democratic nominee probably wouldn't be Carter. Who might it be instead? Jackson? Udall? Even if Chappaquiddick doesn't happen due to butterflies, Ted Kennedy would have second thoughts about a run in '76 since he is up for re-election to the Senate the same year.

If you want to go with a parallel to OTL, former Vice-President Muskie. Jackson would have less motivation to run with Reagan in the White House.
 
If you want to go with a parallel to OTL, former Vice-President Muskie. Jackson would have less motivation to run with Reagan in the White House.

Jackson and Reagan were close on foreign policy, but far apart on the economy and civil rights. Maybe Muskie would run and become 1976's ironic Mondale parallel. But that's certainly not inevitable.
 
Why no watergate analogue? It's Reagan. The only reason there wasn't a watergate 2.0 bc of IRan contra was due to the party brass learning about how democrats would only use their being "Honorable" against them.

There's not really a potential analogue to Iran-contra in the 1970s, plus Reagan is going to have much better relations with the press than Nixon did.
 
Top