|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 10:36:42 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Dalla Piccola, Apocrypha)
  If Ford won in 76, would Ted Kennedy have won in 80?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: If Ford won in 76, would Ted Kennedy have won in 80?  (Read 2935 times)
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 27, 2011, 05:24:17 pm »

And would Reagan or Dole or someone else have been the Republican nominee?
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2011, 06:35:07 pm »

Reagan would be the GOP nominee; no way to butterfly that away.  Also, it's likely that a crapload of Dems would flock to the primaries; there would be a lot of people in line to succeed 12 years of scandal-ridden GOP rule.  If the 6-year itch is bad, the 10-year itch in 78 would've been a nightmare for Ford.  So all in all, Teddy would likely not win the Dem primary due to perception that he was establishment, and that he'd probably split the liberal vote with the (likely) entrances of both Walter Mondale and Gary Hart; the latter would probably come out on top.  If either Ted or Hart won the Dem nomination, the GOP would have a field day with the sex scandals from both; so depending on how bad the scandals take with the American people, it's a defeat for either side at least as severe as 2008; it wouldn't be close.  So that being said, Reagan likely could've pulled it off but it would be tough.  If he wins, he loses in 1984 and the GOP lose the Congress badly in 1982.  If he loses, the GOP has a chance at making a comeback in 1982, and fields a likeable, smalltown guy like Paul Laxalt in 1984.  Laxalt would likely win, assuming that the sex scandals are used properly
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,704
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2011, 07:03:35 pm »

On the Hart issue, for one in 1980 he was a one-termed seeking re-election. Secondly, his scadal(s) didn't come out until '87/'88 so there's a chance that might not be an issue.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,790
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2011, 11:19:38 pm »

Chappaquiddick would have been a drag on him, but if he put his heart into the campaign and coalesced the liberal field around him, I think he could have won the primary. Giving a speech like the one he did at the '80 DNC and holding his own in the debates would have likely produced a nice win.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 12:56:23 pm »

I guess I was thinking of Hart because of Then Everything Changed by Jeff Greenfield; Ford narrowly wins the electoral vote because he doesn't make his gaff about "people in Eastern Europe aren't and will never be under Soviet domination during a Ford administration"; then Hart wins in 1980.  Carter was really more of a conservative than Gerry when it boils down to their positions on issues, and America would be much less conservative without Ronald Reagan (the people; Reagan wasn't really a conservative when you look at his record)
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,704
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2011, 01:00:31 pm »

If Gerry means Gerald Ford, then I'd beg to differ. They were ideologically close together & both were moderate. However, by 1976, Ford had steadied himself & was becoming much tougher with the Soviets. Carter still had his two years of na´vetÚ ahead of him before he became tougher on the foreign front. Economically & socially, they were roughly in the same boat & were the two most fiscally conservative administrations up until Clinton.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2011, 09:36:41 pm »

If Gerry means Gerald Ford, then I'd beg to differ. They were ideologically close together & both were moderate. However, by 1976, Ford had steadied himself & was becoming much tougher with the Soviets. Carter still had his two years of na´vetÚ ahead of him before he became tougher on the foreign front. Economically & socially, they were roughly in the same boat & were the two most fiscally conservative administrations up until Clinton.
Yes they were the same ideologically, but with Ford there'd be no Reagan, and Ted Kennedy with a Democratic Congress scares the crap out of me.  At least with Reagan we got someone with balls and a GOP Senate
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,704
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2011, 09:41:03 pm »

Well you were just saying that Carter was more Cpbservative than Ford, & that Reagan wasn't a real Conservative.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2011, 09:54:38 pm »

Well you were just saying that Carter was more Cpbservative than Ford, & that Reagan wasn't a real Conservative.
I meant that Reagan's not a fiscal conservative, and Ford greatly expanded the Great Society, making him worse than Carter, who attempted to reform welfare and Medicaid but Tip O'Neil stopped him in his tracks
Logged
RodPresident
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,123
Brazil


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2011, 11:40:21 pm »

With a Ford wins, I can see Democrats making some gains at Senate in 1978. They could keep seats in New Hampshire and Iowa, while gaining Dole's seat at special. Republicans would think more before defeat Clifford Case at Primary. Helms, Tower and Domenici would end being unseated and even Thurmond and Baker would be at risk in 1978. Democrats would think into putting someone that can creat a bridge between Southern and Northern voters. Strongest names would be Mondale, Grasso (before cancer), Jerry Brown, Frank Church, Ed Muskie, Hugh Carey, Reubin Askew and Daniel Moynihan. Brown and Grasso can attract many people into primaries, although Askew is the favourite, unless another southern guy (Bumpers, Bentsen or even Wallace appears). I think that Askew would be safest choice for general, but I think that Church is also a great option, although I think that nomination would go to Askew anyway.
In Foreign Policy, Ford would have to manage a pressure from Torrijos for giving Panama Channel. In Nicaragua, i think that Somoza would still receive help from USA and hold on. I doubt that Camp David agreements would occur as in OTL, because Begin would be less willing to cede. This means Sadat' survival. Iran's fate was certain. Neither Kissinger or Ford could save the Shah. This means 2nd Oil Crisis and more of economic troubles that doomed Carter. Afghanistan can be a gate of salvation towards Republicans, like Embassy's crisis at Iran.
Republicans would beg to Reagan to run, in order to giving a "saving face" result. Dole would skip 1980 as he knows that landslide will come against him. Moderate wing can give Reagan a free run, knowing that this election is lost, but knowing that Brown that would be favourite to get Democrat nomination is not strong, they can field a candidate between Hartfield, Percy, Matthias and Weicker. Rumsfeld and Bush can try too, like Howard Baker, if re-elected to Senate.
In Primary, my 1st option would be Grasso, but if she doesn't run, I'd go to Brown and after this, to Church.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2012, 10:45:26 am »

Kennedy wouldn't have run. There's a good reason he ran in 1980; everyone was pressuring him to run and he pretty well knew that he had no chance at unseating Carter. He's got too much baggage.

With Ford in the White House, and thus continuing detente, I'd say a hawkish Democrat would win in 1980.

Henry Martin Jackson.
Logged
MRX
Rookie
**
Posts: 237
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2012, 12:29:34 pm »

With a Ford wins, I can see Democrats making some gains at Senate in 1978. They could keep seats in New Hampshire and Iowa, while gaining Dole's seat at special. Republicans would think more before defeat Clifford Case at Primary. Helms, Tower and Domenici would end being unseated and even Thurmond and Baker would be at risk in 1978. Democrats would think into putting someone that can creat a bridge between Southern and Northern voters. Strongest names would be Mondale, Grasso (before cancer), Jerry Brown, Frank Church, Ed Muskie, Hugh Carey, Reubin Askew and Daniel Moynihan. Brown and Grasso can attract many people into primaries, although Askew is the favourite, unless another southern guy (Bumpers, Bentsen or even Wallace appears). I think that Askew would be safest choice for general, but I think that Church is also a great option, although I think that nomination would go to Askew anyway.
In Foreign Policy, Ford would have to manage a pressure from Torrijos for giving Panama Channel. In Nicaragua, i think that Somoza would still receive help from USA and hold on. I doubt that Camp David agreements would occur as in OTL, because Begin would be less willing to cede. This means Sadat' survival. Iran's fate was certain. Neither Kissinger or Ford could save the Shah. This means 2nd Oil Crisis and more of economic troubles that doomed Carter. Afghanistan can be a gate of salvation towards Republicans, like Embassy's crisis at Iran.
Republicans would beg to Reagan to run, in order to giving a "saving face" result. Dole would skip 1980 as he knows that landslide will come against him. Moderate wing can give Reagan a free run, knowing that this election is lost, but knowing that Brown that would be favourite to get Democrat nomination is not strong, they can field a candidate between Hartfield, Percy, Matthias and Weicker. Rumsfeld and Bush can try too, like Howard Baker, if re-elected to Senate.
In Primary, my 1st option would be Grasso, but if she doesn't run, I'd go to Brown and after this, to Church.

Greenfield is right about the Democrats gaining seats and the Camp David agreements, but definitely had a different opinion on Iran. When writing the book, he talked to Brent Sowcroft who was Ford's NSA, and Sowcroft said this about Iran: "Carter had Vietnam angst. He thought we had been wrong; he thought America would have to pay a price. With Carter, the U.S. would've been on the defense. Ford didn't have any of that." A Ford administration, he says, would have worked with Iran to help nip Iranian demonstrations and insurgency in the bud. Sowcroft also told Greenfield what the Middle East would hypothetically look like in this scenario. Of course, it's impossible to predict Alternate History exactly as there are so many factors and scenarios involved.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,704
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2012, 01:07:53 pm »

With Ford in the White House, and thus continuing detente, I'd say a hawkish Democrat would win in 1980.

Henry Martin Jackson.

That is tricky. By 1976, Ford had definitely gained more teeth in foreign policy and by then had booted Kissinger out of NSA and had brought in Rumsfeld--definitely more hawkish that "realist" Kissinger--as Secretary of Defense. I think in foreign policy Ford would move steadily to the Right during his hypothetical second term.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2012, 12:25:54 am »

With Ford in the White House, and thus continuing detente, I'd say a hawkish Democrat would win in 1980.

Henry Martin Jackson.

That is tricky. By 1976, Ford had definitely gained more teeth in foreign policy and by then had booted Kissinger out of NSA and had brought in Rumsfeld--definitely more hawkish that "realist" Kissinger--as Secretary of Defense. I think in foreign policy Ford would move steadily to the Right during his hypothetical second term.

Would ford have had any coat tails?  And if so, would the GOP have had a chance in Hell of taking either house of Congress by 1984?
Logged
RodPresident
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,123
Brazil


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2012, 01:06:43 am »

Ford's coattails at 1976 would be at maximum keeping seats at Michigan and Ohio and maybe keeping Democrats from winning seats at Nebraska and Tennessee. I think that in best of probabilities, he could have prevented a filibuster-proof Democratic majority, that could be transformed at veto-proof, what means a lame-duck 2nd half of mandate, but I doubt this because there were many moderate democratics at Senate, although things could get radicalized without Baker at helm of Republican's bench.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2012, 12:07:19 am »

Ford's coattails at 1976 would be at maximum keeping seats at Michigan and Ohio and maybe keeping Democrats from winning seats at Nebraska and Tennessee. I think that in best of probabilities, he could have prevented a filibuster-proof Democratic majority, that could be transformed at veto-proof, what means a lame-duck 2nd half of mandate, but I doubt this because there were many moderate democratics at Senate, although things could get radicalized without Baker at helm of Republican's bench.

Interesting; does Reagan help the GOP out in 78 and 80 (the latter by heading the ticket)?
Logged
Dodger Blue
RosettaStoned
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,030
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2012, 03:47:02 am »

 No. Ted Kennedy was unelectable.
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,764
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2012, 04:10:26 am »

Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2012, 11:14:57 pm »

^^^^
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2012, 05:30:48 pm »

A Reagan/Kennedy smackdown would be the ultimate slugfest of alternate historians dreams.

Being a Kennedy, I think Ted would have had a good chance of becoming president.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,931
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2012, 05:32:18 pm »

God forgive me for saying this, but there is a curse on the Kennedys and if Teddy got near the White House, I believe somethign horrible would have happened...

Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2012, 05:33:22 pm »

God forgive me for saying this, but there is a curse on the Kennedys and if Teddy got near the White House, I believe somethign horrible would have happened...



True.
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2012, 03:38:02 pm »

A Reagan/Kennedy smackdown would be the ultimate slugfest of alternate historians dreams.

Being a Kennedy, I think Ted would have had a good chance of becoming president.
You're a Kennedy?  How are you related (not to be a stalker or anything, but that's pretty cool Wink.)  Not to go off topic, but my dad once crashed a fundraiser of his when he was in MA (I think it was when he was running against romney in 94.)
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,704
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2012, 03:55:42 pm »

A Reagan/Kennedy smackdown would be the ultimate slugfest of alternate historians dreams.

Being a Kennedy, I think Ted would have had a good chance of becoming president.
You're a Kennedy?  How are you related (not to be a stalker or anything, but that's pretty cool Wink.)  Not to go off topic, but my dad once crashed a fundraiser of his when he was in MA (I think it was when he was running against romney in 94.)

He's talking about Ted being a Kennedy (I think). Tongue
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2012, 03:59:45 pm »

A Reagan/Kennedy smackdown would be the ultimate slugfest of alternate historians dreams.

Being a Kennedy, I think Ted would have had a good chance of becoming president.
You're a Kennedy?  How are you related (not to be a stalker or anything, but that's pretty cool Wink.)  Not to go off topic, but my dad once crashed a fundraiser of his when he was in MA (I think it was when he was running against romney in 94.)

He's talking about Ted being a Kennedy (I think). Tongue
Ya youre probably right Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines