WI: Ron Paul 1980

JoeMulk

Banned
Could you get a scenario perhaps where the rise of conservatism in the 80s was more of a Libertarian one and perhaps Ron Paul became more popular then Reagen and got the GOP nomination instead?
 
The closest thing you could have to a Ron Paul Presidency without altering the twentieth century beyond recognition, would be a Barry Goldwater Presidency, and even that suffers from serious plausibility issues.
 
You have to prevent his nomination in 1964 to even let him have a chance to be President. And even then 1980 might be too late, Goldwater would be 72 in 1981, and that's probably too old for a first term President in the period. The closest I can come up with for "Goldwater 1980" is a scenario in which he isn't nominated in 1964, doesn't run in 1968 because he knows he can't beat Nixon. Nixon does Watergate on schedule, and Goldwater primaries Ford somehow in 1976. Goldwater wins that election, and he runs for reelection four years later.

And even that is very hard to pull off. If Goldwater doesn't win in 1964 or 1968 he's probably a bit of a has been by 1976, and therefore not very electable. Also, he'd be 68 in 1977, which might be too old.

The scenario I described has an incredible amount of holes in it, but I can't think of anything else that would lead to either a Goldwater or Paul nomination in 1980 that's more plausible than somehow having the former elected four years earlier and have him run for reelection.
 
Han (remember him?) actually wrote a tl that ended up with Paul elected in 1980. The POD was in 1952, however. Paul was Governor of Texas 1979-1981 & I guess Congressnan 1975-1979. Link is below.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112578.0

As for a substitute to Paul, Id suggest Barry Goldwater Jr. a US Congressman 1969-1983. While younger than Paul, I can see him elected CA governor in 1974 or Senator in 1976 & being set up well for a sans Reagan 1980.
 
What if Nixon runs in '64? Supposedly, he thought about it, but decided (rightfully) against it. If he ran (perhaps having won his gubernatorial contest first), and stayed in past the assassination, he'd more than likely lose to Johnson. And even if he wanted to, I doubt the Republicans would let him have a third go-around in '68.

So the '68 election is an open free-for-all for the Republicans, and Goldwater wins it similarly to the '64 situation. With the Democrats in disarray all their own (Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy, McCarthy, anti-Johnsonism), Goldwater has a much better chance of winning.

So:

1960 (OTL): Kennedy / Johnson (D) v. Nixon / Lodge (R)
1964: Johnson / Humphrey (D) v. Nixon / Rockefeller (R)
1968: Humphrey / Muskie (D)? v. Goldwater / Miller? (R)
1972: ??? (D) v. Goldwater / Miller? (R)
1976: ??? (D) v. ??? (R)
1980: ??? (D) v. Paul / ??? (R)
 
What if Nixon runs in '64? Supposedly, he thought about it, but decided (rightfully) against it. If he ran (perhaps having won his gubernatorial contest first), and stayed in past the assassination, he'd more than likely lose to Johnson. And even if he wanted to, I doubt the Republicans would let him have a third go-around in '68.

So the '68 election is an open free-for-all for the Republicans, and Goldwater wins it similarly to the '64 situation. With the Democrats in disarray all their own (Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy, McCarthy, anti-Johnsonism), Goldwater has a much better chance of winning.

So:

1960 (OTL): Kennedy / Johnson (D) v. Nixon / Lodge (R)
1964: Johnson / Humphrey (D) v. Nixon / Rockefeller (R)
1968: Humphrey / Muskie (D)? v. Goldwater / Miller? (R)
1972: ??? (D) v. Goldwater / Miller? (R)
1976: ??? (D) v. ??? (R)
1980: ??? (D) v. Paul / ??? (R)

And of course, Goldwater has to lose re-election...
 
Top