WI: Reagan Loses the NC Primary in 1976?

[PresidentZinn]

In the 1976 Republican presidential primaries Ronald Reagan's campaign was nearly undone by a string of early losses that was not reversed until his victory in the North Carolina Primary. When browsing wikipedia I recently came across this quote from Craig Shirley:

"Had Reagan lost North Carolina, despite his public pronouncements, his revolutionary challenge to Ford, along with his political career, would have ended unceremoniously. He would have made a gracious exit speech, cut a deal with the Ford forces to eliminate his campaign debt, made a minor speech at the Kansas City Convention later that year, and returned to his ranch in Santa Barbara. He would probably have only reemerged to make speeches and cut radio commercials to supplement his income. And Reagan would have faded into political oblivion."

My question is: What would have become of America, Reagan and Movement conservatism had Ford managed to beat Reagan yet again?

 

[Emperor Julian]

Could Gerald Ford win reelection easier? Less bitter conservatives could lead to his numbers being stronger (especially in the South, maybe he could win Mississippi and Texas), and an easier primary would make Ford seem stronger and give him more time to prepare his campaign and focus on the Democrats. Plus, butterflies are almost certain to prevent the Soviet Union gaffe.

 

[GeographyDude]

Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All, Craig Shirley, 2005.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fP...nt, but Keene's point was well taken"&f=false

page 168:

Keene cited . . . "It was in North Carolina that the turnout model returned to its normal pattern. About thirty percent of registered Republicans turned out." Actually, the turnout was closer to 40 percent, but Keene's point was well taken.


page 170:


Reagan went after Ford on the Panama Canal especially hard. The canal, it was rumored at the time, was going to be turned over to the military dictator of Panama, Omar Torrijos. Although the Ford White House and Kissinger's State Department denied it, the "giveaway" came to symbolize the frustration Americans felt in 1976 in the aftermath of losing the Vietnam War. Reagan, in speech after speech, would make his case for keeping the Canal, usually thundering, "It's ours! We built it! We paid for it! And we should keep it!" Reagan was once again in motion, following the Sears maxim that "politics is motion."

Of course there were other conservative issues as well, but Panama was big.

==========

If Reagan loses the NC primary, Ford sails through and is not perceived as bruised and bloodied up. Ford wins the 1976 general election against Carter.

And with a difficult economy in '79 and '80 and with a Republican then being in the White House for the twelve straight year, Reagan might well win the '80 Republican primary, but I think any Republican has a very difficult time in the 1980 general election.

 

[Peter Parker]

In the 1976 Republican presidential primaries Ronald Reagan's campaign was nearly undone by a string of early losses that was not reversed until his victory in the North Carolina Primary. When browsing wikipedia I recently came across this quote from Craig Shirley:

"Had Reagan lost North Carolina, despite his public pronouncements, his revolutionary challenge to Ford, along with his political career, would have ended unceremoniously. He would have made a gracious exit speech, cut a deal with the Ford forces to eliminate his campaign debt, made a minor speech at the Kansas City Convention later that year, and returned to his ranch in Santa Barbara. He would probably have only reemerged to make speeches and cut radio commercials to supplement his income. And Reagan would have faded into political oblivion."

My question is: What would have become of America, Reagan and Movement conservatism had Ford managed to beat Reagan yet again?

No! That is wrong. Reagan would not have fallen out of politics. Had Nixon lost in 1968, Reagan would have been the front runner in 1972. He was famous ever since his speech at the 1964 RNC for Barry Goldwater. He won the popular vote in the 1968 primaries, and had Nelson Rockerfellor cut a deal with him at the 1968, he could have ran.

In fact, if you get rid of Watergate, Reagan wins the Republican primary in 1976.

So no, Reagan would not drop out of public life. 1976 was not the first time he was in the spotlight. Nothing could have stopped him from get the nod in 1980. I mean nothing except death.

 

[GeographyDude]

Reagan liked the world of ideas, and he liked politics a lot. I don't think he would drop out either.

Here's the scenario I paint. Ford wins the North Carolina primary and then sails to the Republican nomination. But then, both Ford and Carter are candidates with strengths and weaknesses. Ford's not way behind where he needs to catch up. The election is a much more dynamic process at this point. Carter may take more chances, and they may be smart chances which help him. The election really could go either way.

If Ford wins the general election in 1976 . . .

Then President Ford will face stagflation in '79, a mini gas shortage and higher prices the summer of '79, and the situation in Iran where America is blamed for the brutality of the Shah, with a fair degree of truth since we did put the guy in office in the first place. And Ford will face the situation of whether to admit the Shah to the country to seek medical treatment, and the guy is a friend even though in a sense he's not much of a friend.

Governor Reagan wins the Republican nomination in 1980. But you see at this point, the American voting public is not real enamored with the Republican Party, plus there's party fatigue setting in.

Let's say the 1980 Democratic nominee is former Arkansas governor and current Senator Dale Bumpers. I think the democrats would be ahead in the polls at this point, although it would be another interesting election.

 

[David T]

I do not think that a loss to Ford in the 1976 North Carolina primary would have necessarily meant the end of Reagan's political career. Reagan had a loyal conservative base which in 1980 would say something like "Sure he lost in 1976--it's virtually impossible to defeat an incumbent president. That doesn't mean he'd be a loser this year." (They will also point out the narrowness of his losses in Florida, New Hampshire, and--in this ATL--North Carolina.) Don't forget that whether Ford or Carter wins in November 1976, there will be an incumbentless race for the Republican nomination in 1980, in which Reagan--yes, even a Reagan who had not won any primaries in 1976 before withdrawing--is likely to dominate the Right, while moderate Republicans as in OTL are probably divided among several different candidates. And Reagan will have kept himself in the public eye in the meantime with speeches and radio commentaries criticizing either Carter (if Carter wins in November 1976 as in OTL) or Ford (if Ford wins in November 1976).

Indeed, in 1980, if Ford is re-elected in 1976, there is likely to be a great deal of resentment among conservatives that after twelve years of Republican control of the White House, "real" conservative policies have yet to be enacted and Reagan is still the most likely beneficiary of such resentment. (Though of course if the Republican "brand" is badly tarnished by the Ford administration, even Reagan may not be able to win the presidency for the party in November.)

BTW, to anyone who thinks that a Reagan who didn't win any primaries in 1976 could not hope to win the nomination in 1980, I would point out that Bob Dole had not been very successful in presidential primaries before 1996...

 

[Realpolitik]

Reagan isn't going away, he is too good politically and has a very devoted base.

I still think Carter would win in 1976, and Reagan would in 1980.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . there will be an incumbentless race for the Republican nomination in 1980, in which Reagan--yes, even a Reagan who had not won any primaries in 1976 before withdrawing--is likely to dominate the Right, while moderate Republicans as in OTL are probably divided among several different candidates. . .

I recently watched Richard Viguerie, who started off as the conservative direct mail guy, on Book TV. He was worried that in the 2016 Republican nomination process a lot of states have winner-take-off. Thus, several conservative candidates could split the vote allowing a moderate to win.

In 1980, Bush barely won the Iowa caucus in large part because Reagan, on the advice of his people that he already had the state locked up, didn't campaign much there and in fact skipped an Iowa debate. And then, Reagan won New Hampshire and that pretty much was the nomination. Political scientists and/or just regular citizens interested in democracy can ask, wow, just two states, not much of a thorough nomination process, now, is it? (I don't know whether New Hampshire is or was one of those winner-take-all states.)

===============

On the question of political base, this source says that in the 1980 general election, much of the result can be viewed as a vote against Carter. One exit poll found that 38% of Reagan voters said their reason was "it's time for a change" whereas only 11% of Reagan voters said their reason was "he's a real conservative."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ST...le analyzing the 1980 exit poll data"&f=false

 

[Japhy]

No! That is wrong. Reagan would not have fallen out of politics. Had Nixon lost in 1968, Reagan would have been the front runner in 1972. He was famous ever since his speech at the 1964 RNC for Barry Goldwater. He won the popular vote in the 1968 primaries, and had Nelson Rockerfellor cut a deal with him at the 1968, he could have ran.

In fact, if you get rid of Watergate, Reagan wins the Republican primary in 1976.

So no, Reagan would not drop out of public life. 1976 was not the first time he was in the spotlight. Nothing could have stopped him from get the nod in 1980. I mean nothing except death.

The bolded part is where you showed you don't really know what you're talking about. Do you know who Nelson Rockefeller even was?

Reagan rose to political prominence with his 1964 Speech and 1966 election yes, and in 1968 was the Conservative Insurgent just as he would do again in 1976. But in no way was his political triumph inevitable. Two defeats as a populist, conservative, two defeats where in no way does he come off seeming as a real heir apparent is probably too much.

1964 is a hell of a long time away from 1980, and really 1964 was such a Republican defeat that nothing at that convention benifited anyone in '80. Reagan's political pulse was kept going by the fact he almost dethroned an incumbent. Without that, he's starts slipping in popular perception towards being a "Wingnut" who refuses to accept "the way things are" in the Post-Fall of Saigon United States.

He was really out of step for his time, but it worked because he'd "won" in doing what no other party Insurgent had ever done before. Without that, in 1980 its been a full 16 years since his speech at the GOP Convention and Half a Decade since he last held office. And all he has to show since then is being a loser. Its not a recipe for winning. It'd be like John Kerry trying to make a political comeback in 2016. Its not going to work when there are other, more respectable and mainstream options for the GOP to chose from.

 

[Japhy]

Reagan isn't going away, he is too good politically and has a very devoted base.

I still think Carter would win in 1976, and Reagan would in 1980.

Why would Carter win? Its not like his IOTL victory was a landslide. It was a squeaker and the race had zigzagged back and forth thanks to the Reagan Fight, Carter's Playboy Interview, Ford misspeaking at the Debate, etc. Hell 1976 is one of the easiest to change races in American History.

And in 1980 how does Reagan-the-loser stand up to other conservative candidates, much less anyone anointed by a potential second Ford Administration? Even without that Reagan is a twice failed insurgent, and there will be other Conservative voices who might step in with better records.

 

[David T]

Why would Carter win? Its not like his IOTL victory was a landslide. It was a squeaker and the race had zigzagged back and forth thanks to the Reagan Fight, Carter's Playboy Interview, Ford misspeaking at the Debate, etc. Hell 1976 is one of the easiest to change races in American History.

And in 1980 how does Reagan-the-loser stand up to other conservative candidates, much less anyone anointed by a potential second Ford Administration? Even without that Reagan is a twice failed insurgent, and there will be other Conservative voices who might step in with better records.

That Reagan's dropping out of the race early would have helped Ford in November 1976 is plausible but by no means certain. For example, (1) it may be that the only way for Ford to defeat Reagan in NC would be to hit him really hard, suggest he's a warmonger, a threat to Social Security and Medicare, etc. This could lead to more inter-GOP bitterness than in OTL (though admittedly there will also be more time to overcome it); and (2) I have seen it argued that the additional months of fighting Reagan forced Ford to build up a better campaign machine, which helped him in November.

As for 1980 if Ford wins in 1976--if Ford is sufficiently unpopular, anyone backed by him may face a *disadvantage* in the Republican primaries, and Reagan will sound plausible to many Republicans when he says that if he had been nominated and elected in 1976, things would have been better for the party and the country. Reagan was like Williams Jennings Bryan in that he had a devoted base of followers who didn't mind that he lost some elections. (And in any event he could point out that it is very hard to beat a sitting president in the primaries, and that he had come close in FL, NH, and--in this TL--NC.)

 

[Emperor Julian]

Also remember, that running again in 1980, Reagan was six years out of office, with his last achievement being losing badly. Also, he would be really old. I'm sure that if Reagan looks weaker, which he most certainly will, some younger conservatives would think that his time has passed just like Goldwater's and jump in themselves.