WI Udall v Reagan in 1976

So breaking this down:
  • First, with no PoDs prior to January that year, how can these respective nominations happen?
  • Second, given the nominations, how does the general election play out?
  • Third, how do the primaries for the losing party play out in 1980?
  • Fourth, (just to cover our bases) can we safely assume this nominee will win 1980? (i.e. Do the next four years fare significantly better for the winner than OTL did for Carter?)
  • Fifth, given all the above, how (if at all, to any significant extent) are the 1980's changed from OTL?
 
Thats a loaded question but let's do it:
1. Udall holds on to the lead in Michigan and doesn't lose it to Carter. He can also campaign as the experienced yet outsider option. Perhaps maybe of frank church and Jerry Brown enter earlier, they can control enough delegates this escalating Udall to the nomination. For Reagan, don't choose Schweiker. Choose a conservative (maybe early H.W. Bush, maybe Conally.) win over Mississippi, boom. Nominated.
2. It's hard to say. Both are outsiders with wit and charisma. A debate would be a comedy show with reagans witty retorts and udalls trademark one liners. It'd be one of the liveliest elections after a post watergate election. However, I think Udall wins by a narrow yet comfortable (300 or so EV's, 1% in the PV) because Democrats just had so many inherent advantages that year and Reagan was a bit too right for the general electorate at this point in time.
3. I think Mo won't face a challenge in the primaries. The Iran hostage crisis doesn't happen and economy stinks but not as bad as OTL. Republican race is wild. All walks of life run. I'd guess Connally or Bush wins assuming Reagan doesn't run. Maybe if Ford does he wins but Conally or Bush. President Mo wins by a narrow yet comfy margin. (Less than last one but enough.)
4. It's better. The economy recovers safely and President Mo is popular enough.
5. 1980's are not remembered for bright vision of the future. It's remembered as a stable time that was fun to live in. The Soviet Union falls on schedule so peace and prosperity mire the decade which isn't bad. Udall is remembered as an above average president and definitely the funniest. (His VP would've been Carter.)
 
The Iran hostage crisis doesn't happen and economy stinks but not as bad as OTL... It's better. The economy recovers safely...
Curious as to why this is, especially the bolded part.
President Mo wins by a narrow yet comfy margin. (Less than last one but enough.)
Supposing, for the sake of argument, he doesn't? I suppose first thing is, which of the likely nominees -- Reagan, Connally, Bush, or Ford -- is most likely to able to accomplish that; second thing is, does that do anything to change the answer of what TTL's 80's are like?
1980's are not remembered for bright vision of the future. It's remembered as a stable time that was fun to live in.
 
If Reagan ran in '76 and lost to Udall, you'd also have to consider some other long-term effects -- possibly no evolution southern strategy, no Reaganomics, no years of Republican dominance (which'd mean possible diversion from any Clintonite 'New Democrats'). Lots of interesting stuff.
 
Curious as to why this is, especially the bolded part.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, he doesn't? I suppose first thing is, which of the likely nominees -- Reagan, Connally, Bush, or Ford -- is most likely to able to accomplish that; second thing is, does that do anything to change the answer of what TTL's 80's are like?
Not totally sure, but I do believe that in the cases of both Nicaragua and Iran, the Carter administration cut off military and diplomatic support for them when they were in crisis mode and needed backing due to popular uprisings, and that it was a major cause of their collapse as Cold War allies. It was a big theme in the famous Dictatorships and Double Standards essay by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, which was quite influential on Reagan.

Its unlikely that he would have tried to force either regime to come to terms with opposition and look for a political solution to those crises as Carter did, when he would be convinced of the failure of those options. The argument was that Somosza and the Shah could have crushed the rebellions against them had the US acted as it promised it would pre-Carter.

Now, I don't know about Udall and his foreign policy ideas. I know he was basically a run of the mill liberal but wasn't a full on Church Committee pinko fanatic as some alleged at the time.

As for Reagan, he probably would prioritize keeping the Panama Canal but I think he wouldn't have taken Carter's line on the Iran issue.
 
The hostage crisis resulted from Carter’s friendship with the Shah of Iran. The poeple of Iran hated the shah and after he was allowed to leave Iran for chemotherapy, the Iranainas took the embassy hostage. Udall probably wouldn’t care enough to be with the shah and thus averting that. Also, if Reagan wins in ‘80, 1980’s go the same. Other nominees, it goes differently. Kind of like what two terms of Mo would look like but with a republican in power.
 
Udall wins the general against Reagan. Udall most likely wouldn't fumble during the General election Campaign as much as Carter did and Reagan was too far to the right for the electorate at that time. The late 70s are still difficult no matter who is President, but I can see Udall handling those four years better than Carter did (I could also see Ford dealing with them better to), Iran probably sees a revolution but no Hostage Crisis either. Udall probably gets more legislation through Congress than Carter did as well. As for 1980, Reagan isn't running again after losing nor is a Conservative getting nominated. My guess would be (as was the case in my TL) the nomination would be Ford's if he wanted it. Otherwise, Howard Baker or HW Bush. Dole is a possibility as well and he'd be the most Conservative option for the GOP that year IMHO. Whether Udall wins or loses, 1980 will be much closer than OTL. If a Republican wins, they'll serve 2 terms like Reagan did and the 80s will be a more moderate version of the 80s OTL. If Udall wins, 84 would be a toss up and the early 80s would be far different than OTL.
 
. . . Its unlikely that he would have tried to force either regime [Iran or Nicaragua] to come to terms with opposition and look for a political solution to those crises as Carter did, . . .
I know Carter has a reputation as too nice a guy and similar shit. But . . . if we look at "strong" men and thugs he actually supported, it tells a very different story. For example, he supported regimes in Zaire and Guatemala, and he supported Indonesia during some of the worse periods of their military occupation of East Timor.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy/
 
Last edited:
1976 might be a little closer. People weren't ready for Reagan yet in 1976, but he also didn't have the Nixon pardon on his record.

Reagan was also pragmatic enough to offer up a Reagan&lite platform if he gets the nomination in 1976. In OTL he banned assault weapons and signed off on amnesty.
 
Top