WI: Reagan in '68, Nixon in '80

Richard Nixon was actually younger than Ronald Reagan, but more politically successful. Ronald Reagan was older, but delayed his entry into political life. And then there are the matters of happenstance. So that's why Nixon was elected a political generation before Ronald Reagan was a sparkle in the electorate's eye.

Just for the heck of it, let us reverse (or strive to reverse) the roles, and have Ronald Reagan run in 1968 and Richard Nixon run in 1980.
 
Richard Nixon was actually younger than Ronald Reagan, but more politically successful. Ronald Reagan was older, but delayed his entry into political life. And then there are the matters of happenstance. So that's why Nixon was elected a political generation before Ronald Reagan was a sparkle in the electorate's eye.

Just for the heck of it, let us reverse (or strive to reverse) the roles, and have Ronald Reagan run in 1968 and Richard Nixon run in 1980.

Maybe have Thurmond back Reagan at the '68 convention - Reagan is nominated, narrowly beats Humphrey and then serves out two terms. He appoints Nixon secretary of state.

In '76, Reagan is succeeded by a Democrat, possibly Jimmy Carter (yes, I think the Watergate explanation for Carter's rise is overstated) or possibly someone else. Regardless, they get hit by the same cascading issues as Carter did OTL, and in 1980, Reagan as a tried-and-true elder statesman is able to secure the nomination and win the presidency.
 
Maybe have Thurmond back Reagan at the '68 convention - Reagan is nominated, narrowly beats Humphrey and then serves out two terms. He appoints Nixon secretary of state.

In '76, Reagan is succeeded by a Democrat, possibly Jimmy Carter (yes, I think the Watergate explanation for Carter's rise is overstated) or possibly someone else. Regardless, they get hit by the same cascading issues as Carter did OTL, and in 1980, Reagan as a tried-and-true elder statesman is able to secure the nomination and win the presidency.

Have you heard of a little something called the 22nd Amendment?
 
This is probably hard to do, age is the least of your problems.

A Reagan 68' means earlier neocon hijacking of the Republicans, Nixon might be out of place in 1980. You have to remember Nixon was moderate compared to Reagan.

But for the sake of the question, i'd assume Reagan would throw enough at Vietnam to win it, and the North Vietnamese would think he makes Nixon look docile. But no detente, so the Cold War is way different.

What Nixon inherits depends on who the Democrats elect in 76', before the convention that year Carter was a dark horse, so it's hard to say.

But I think Nixon could bring the Cold War to a close without the late-game escalations that Reagan did.
 
If Reagan gets the nomination in 1968, Humphrey wins. Reagan in his 1960s incarnation was simply too Goldwateresque.
 
You could have Reagan get the nomination in '68, lose to Humphrey in the general, then Humphrey loses to Rockefeller or someone along those lines in '72. Then, come '76, thanks to the recession of '73-'75, the incumbent Republican loses to a Democrat (possibly Carter), and said Democrat presides over the same shit storm that Carter did IOTL. As a result of this, the country elects elder Statesman Richard Nixon to the Presidency in 1980.
 
This is probably hard to do, age is the least of your problems.

A Reagan 68' means earlier neocon hijacking of the Republicans, Nixon might be out of place in 1980. You have to remember Nixon was moderate compared to Reagan.

But for the sake of the question, i'd assume Reagan would throw enough at Vietnam to win it, and the North Vietnamese would think he makes Nixon look docile. But no detente, so the Cold War is way different.

What Nixon inherits depends on who the Democrats elect in 76', before the convention that year Carter was a dark horse, so it's hard to say.

But I think Nixon could bring the Cold War to a close without the late-game escalations that Reagan did.

Reagan wasn't a neocon though. This is the guy who after Hezbollah killed 200 Marines in Lebanon, just pulled the troops out and did nothing.
 
Last edited:
You could have Reagan get the nomination in '68, lose to Humphrey in the general, then Humphrey loses to Rockefeller or someone along those lines in '72. Then, come '76, thanks to the recession of '73-'75, the incumbent Republican loses to a Democrat (possibly Carter), and said Democrat presides over the same shit storm that Carter did IOTL. As a result of this, the country elects elder Statesman Richard Nixon to the Presidency in 1980.

Barring something very weird in Vietnam, I think Humphrey would win re-election in 1972. He's got incumbency, the benefit of a good economy, and can start getting out of the war now that Johnson is no longer looking over his shoulder. The Great Society remains popular.

1976 is Reagan or Nixon's chance. 16 years of Democratic rule, a recession, the Vietnam failure falls entirely at the Democratic door. Of course, that means Reagan or Nixon then faces the Carter crises...
 
Maybe have Thurmond back Reagan at the '68 convention - Reagan is nominated, narrowly beats Humphrey and then serves out two terms. He appoints Nixon secretary of state.

In '76, Reagan is succeeded by a Democrat, possibly Jimmy Carter (yes, I think the Watergate explanation for Carter's rise is overstated) or possibly someone else. Regardless, they get hit by the same cascading issues as Carter did OTL, and in 1980, Reagan as a tried-and-true elder statesman is able to secure the nomination and win the presidency.

This would be an EXCELLENT timeline...
 
Barring something very weird in Vietnam, I think Humphrey would win re-election in 1972. He's got incumbency, the benefit of a good economy, and can start getting out of the war now that Johnson is no longer looking over his shoulder. The Great Society remains popular.

1976 is Reagan or Nixon's chance. 16 years of Democratic rule, a recession, the Vietnam failure falls entirely at the Democratic door. Of course, that means Reagan or Nixon then faces the Carter crises...

The economy was only good for 72 because Nixon and the fed fiddled with it to make it look good, this was part of the reason the mid to late 70s were as bad as they were economically. While not as bad as his second term, Nixon's first term was not good economically. Plus you have to factor in voter fatigue and the fact that I doubt a Democrat, even against Reagan, is gonna win a landslide in '68.
 
Reagan wasn't a neocon though. This is the guy who after Hezbollah killed 200 Marines in Lebanon, just pulled the troops out and did nothing.

Still, Reagan took foreign policy from detente to rollback.

"Let us move from the era of confrontation to the era of negotiation."-Richard Nixon

And Reagan called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'. Nixon was willing to negotiate, Reagan often just made demands.

I see were mean he wasn't a through-and-through neocon, but he certainly nourished the seeds of the movement, admittedly on the ground Nixon sowed.
 
mood of the nation

This is probably hard to do, age is the least of your problems.

A Reagan 68' means earlier neocon hijacking of the Republicans, Nixon might be out of place in 1980. You have to remember Nixon was moderate compared to Reagan.

But for the sake of the question, i'd assume Reagan would throw enough at Vietnam to win it, and the North Vietnamese would think he makes Nixon look docile. But no detente, so the Cold War is way different.

What Nixon inherits depends on who the Democrats elect in 76', before the convention that year Carter was a dark horse, so it's hard to say.

But I think Nixon could bring the Cold War to a close without the late-game escalations that Reagan did.

I can't see Reagan winning on escalating the Vietnam War which was becoming unpopular among Americans plus how would he handle the civil rights uprisings?
 
I can't see Reagan winning on escalating the Vietnam War which was becoming unpopular among Americans plus how would he handle the civil rights uprisings?

The ("silent") majority of Americans supported the continuation of the war and most polls supported (by a slight majority) an invasion of N. Vietnam (if it would win the war)
 
Top