Watergate never happens

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

In this scenario, Nixon wins the 1972 election fair and square and doesn't cheat.

What would happen and what would be the butterflies?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nixon did win fair and square in 1972.  That's what makes Watergate so baffling; there was never any reason to think such shenanigans were necessary to win.

As for butterflies, Ford likely does not become Vice President.  (Because of Watergate, when Agnew resigned, there was already considerable expectation that whoever was picked to replace Agnew was likely to become President.)  Also, without Watergate, it's less likely that Carter runs, but if he does, he still gets the nomination.  Watergate gave Carter reason to think he could win, but it was his novel strategy of contesting every caucus and primary that got him the nomination.

[brucejoel99]

Are you asking what if the break-in of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate never happened, or what if the Nixon administration didn't attempt to cover-up its involvement in said break-in?

[Senator Incitatus]

This isn't alternative; Watergate is a myth.

[(no subject)]

I do wonder who the 76 Dem nominee will be as I doubt it'll be Carter, since Nixon not resigning is going to take the wind out of his sails. Also Wallace being shot might be butterflied away and if GW is in better health in 1976, I wouldn't be surprised if he runs and takes a slice of the Southern support Carter got in real history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do wonder who the 76 Dem nominee will be as I doubt it'll be Carter, since Nixon not resigning is going to take the wind out of his sails. Also Wallace being shot might be butterflied away and if GW is in better health in 1976, I wouldn't be surprised if he runs and takes a slice of the Southern support Carter got in real history.

Carter would have to run on different issues in this alt-1976, but he still would likely be the candidate who took the most advantage of the changes to the Democratic Party's nomination process put in place after the debacle of 1972.

[dw93]

Agnew still resigns as he was busted for crimes he committed as Governor of MD, and thus Ford still becomes VP as Nixon isn't likely to get anyone else confirmed through a Democratic Congress. The 74 midterms are still awful for the GOP due to the economy, but still better than the elections of our universe. Saigon still falls, but it doesn't without a fight from Nixon in the form of bombings.

As for the 1976 elections, Ford had no ambitions to be President prior to becoming President, so my guess is he declines to run in 76 and retires from politics after January of 1977. Reagan still runs, and either Nelson Rockefeller or Charles Percy challenges him from the left. John Connolly may also run with Nixon urging him to do so, but I doubt he gets far as I doubt any Republican is gonna vote for a guy that was a Democrat as recent as 1973, so Reagan is likely the nominee, unless in the absence of Connolly Nixon begrudgingly backs Rocky behind the scenes to stop Reagan, and even then Reagan almost denied Ford the nomination in our universe, I think he'd stand a good chance at beating Rockefeller. Reagan's choice of running mate is likely someone that appeases Nixon.

On the Democratic side, Carter still runs, but with no Watergate, I doubt he gets any traction outside of the south, so his best bet would be the Vice Presidency. As for who would be the Presidential nominee, of those that ran, my guess is Mo Udall or if Humphrey makes clear early that he isn't running, the unions get behind Scoop Jackson and he gets nominated. Frank Church is also a possibility.

As for how the General Election goes, I think the recession of 1973-75 and the so so recovery from it, as well as the "8 year itch" put the Democrats in a good position to win, but the GOP was stronger electorally and more unified. I think it's a toss up. Whichever party wins though likely loses in 1980, and without the "Watergate babies" a 1978 midterm under a Democratic President could see the Senate flip two years earlier and may even cause the house to flip before 1994.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ford certainly wouldn't give up being Minority Leader and potential Speaker if the Republicans gain control of the House only to be a Vice President who would only run out the clock until 1976. Moreover, without Watergate, the list of acceptable replacements for Agnew increases, as there would be less expectation that they'd be likely confirming the next President.

Ford might back his deputy in the House, John Anderson, if he goes for the nomination four years earlier and he might be able to help him get the nomination in 1976. (I don't know if Ford and Anderson were close, just that they served together in the House Republican leadership.)

The one certain thing is that without Watergate, Ford definitely does not agree to becoming Vice President.

[(no subject)]

"Saigon still falls, but it doesn't without a fight from Nixon in the form of bombings."

Which means that Thieu might not panic about coupers and most of Saigon's army isn't routed in one go. I think the TTL bombings cut off enough supplies that the PAVN don't reach Saigon before Generals Mud and Rain come so at least several months longer before the final end. Thousands more are able to flee or evacuate.

[(no subject)]

On the down side, Pol Pot will win in Cambodia quite a while before the North Vietnamese take Saigon in this world and if the Peoples Army of Vietnam have used some Cambodian roads and airfields in their final campaign, they will owe Pol Pot some favors, which could delay their later invasion and make Pol Pot’s genocide even worse.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Are you asking what if the break-in of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate never happened, or what if the Nixon administration didn't attempt to cover-up its involvement in said break-in?

the break-in of the DNC headquarters doesn't happen

[brucejoel99]

Are you asking what if the break-in of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate never happened, or what if the Nixon administration didn't attempt to cover-up its involvement in said break-in?

the break-in of the DNC headquarters doesn't happen

If it just doesn't happen, then Nixon can probably get a universal health care/insurance system passed, for one thing. He might even be able to keep South Vietnam from falling, too, though inflation would still be a major issue, as would the economy, so maybe his legacy would end up like Poppy Bush's? Remembered as a very good (if not great) foreign policy President, but beset by domestic issues. Some liberals would still never like him, but there'd probably be a generally positive consensus in terms of his legacy.

In the short term, 1976 would likely see VP Connally (ultimately unsuccessfully) challenged by Reagan or some other conservative for the nomination, resulting in match-up between him & a Democrat like Udall or Jackson. It'd still be a somewhat close election due to the aforementioned domestic issues, but I imagine Connally could eek out a win. Party fatigue would probably mean that he could lose to somebody like Ted Kennedy come 1980, though. Like Reagan in real life, I could see the Democratic winner of 1980 being able to survive the rough economy early on before going onto pass some major (in this scenario, liberal) legislation. After that, who knows?

[NewYorkExpress]

For some reason, I can't help but think of Watchmen seeing this scenario.

Nixon would probably be President until he dies, 22nd Amendment be damned.

[Snazzrazz Mazzlejazz]

This isn't alternative; Watergate is a myth.

Huh?

[darklordoftech]

Nixon can probably get a universal health care/insurance system passed, for one thing.

That alone would make it a better timeline.

[mianfei]

...without the “Watergate babies” a 1978 midterm under a Democratic President could see the Senate flip two years earlier and may even cause the house to flip before 1994.

An earlier Republican Senate would certainly give Republican presidents more freedom to pack the Supreme Court with hardcore conservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s. It would also have made it impossible or difficult for Bill Clinton to make the two Court appointments he did, a difficulty that would have hurt his re-election chance even if Clinton did win in 1992. Such a court would have struck down not merely the decisions of the Warren Court, but ruled against most congressional civil rights legislation at a much earlier date than the Roberts Court.

There might have been butterflies from this if voter suppression grew beyond the limited levels observed since Shelby County v. Holder – and at an earlier date. If voter suppression of nonwhites reached to the levels (30 to 40 percent) seen in the Rim South and Acadiana before the Voting Rights Act, it would have affected key southwestern and South Atlantic states very substantially. With control of these, and of all the Great Lakes states except Illinois and perhaps Minnesota, the Republican Party would have gained a long-term lock on the Electoral College into the 2020s and beyond.

Practically complete nonwhite voter suppression, as seen before the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi, Alabama, the non-Acadian parts of Louisiana, of Native Americans in most of the Mountain and Plains States, and of all the former Confederacy before Smith v. Allwright, would really make the Democrats a regional party limited to the Northeast and Pacific Coast, unless they abandon civil rights entirely and take a “law and order” approach to urban nonwhite populations as was seen in the 1980s and 1990s.