1976 after 2 terms of HHH

[Sir Mohamed]

Highly speculative of course, but how would you expect 1976 go after full terms of Hubert Humphrey as POTUS? Who did he defeat in 1972 and how did his terms go? Does 1976 also see a rise of Reagan and conservatism or does the party revert back to a moderate nominee after having spent 16 years in the wilderness?

I think it's very likely VP Edmund Muskie is the Dem nominee in 1976 then.

[dw93]

My guess is the 1972 nominee is either going to be Rockefeller or Reagan, with Humphrey having equal odds at beating both (Rocky for being a has been and Reagan due to being perceived as extreme). If Rockefeller is the one to lose to Humphrey, Reagan who's fresh after two terms as Governor of California beats VP Muskie, and likely goes on to lose in 1980.


If Reagan is the one HHH beats, a moderate Republican wins the election in 1976. They to are the odds favorite to lose in 1980, but have slightly better odds at winning than Reagan.

[Agonized-Statism]

Wallace does well enough to throw the election to the House in 1968, and Humphrey defies all odds by beating an unpopular Rockefeller in 1972. By 1976, Democrats' luck runs out.


Vice President Edmund Muskie (D-ME) / Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL)
Fmr. Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) / Senator Richard Schweiker (R-PA) ✓

[Alben Barkley]

Wallace does well enough to throw the election to the House in 1968, and Humphrey defies all odds by beating an unpopular Rockefeller in 1972. By 1976, Democrats' luck runs out.


Vice President Edmund Muskie (D-ME) / Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL)
Fmr. Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) / Senator Richard Schweiker (R-PA) ✓

Why are you so sure Rockefeller would have been the nominee in '72? Hell, it could have been Reagan did. Rocky never won a GOP primary and was forced out of even the VP slot in '76 for a reason you know. He was anathema to the party base. I find it hard to see him being nominated, especially after 1968 when the parties gave more power to the primaries and the base voters in deciding the nominee.

[Agonized-Statism]

Why are you so sure Rockefeller would have been the nominee in '72? Hell, it could have been Reagan did. Rocky never won a GOP primary and was forced out of even the VP slot in '76 for a reason you know. He was anathema to the party base. I find it hard to see him being nominated, especially after 1968 when the parties gave more power to the primaries and the base voters in deciding the nominee.

Because the scenario requires Humphrey to win in 1972. I don't think Rockefeller would be the nominee or that Humphrey would win reelection (cue the wall of text, of course).

[Alben Barkley]

Why are you so sure Rockefeller would have been the nominee in '72? Hell, it could have been Reagan did. Rocky never won a GOP primary and was forced out of even the VP slot in '76 for a reason you know. He was anathema to the party base. I find it hard to see him being nominated, especially after 1968 when the parties gave more power to the primaries and the base voters in deciding the nominee.

Because the scenario requires Humphrey to win in 1972. I don't think Rockefeller would be the nominee or that Humphrey would win reelection (cue the wall of text, of course).

OK then, why do you think Rockefeller would have been easier for a President Humphrey to beat than Reagan or other Republicans in 1972? Hell, why do you think ANY incumbent would have been disadvantaged in 1972 for that matter against ANY challenger? That flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and is akin to saying Kerry would have been a lock in 2008 if he won in 2004 or if Bush won that any Republican but McCain could have easily won that year, etc. It's a bold, unintuitive claim that requires a lot of explanation to be seriously examined for merit.

There is no wall of text, of course.

[Agonized-Statism]

Why are you so sure Rockefeller would have been the nominee in '72? Hell, it could have been Reagan did. Rocky never won a GOP primary and was forced out of even the VP slot in '76 for a reason you know. He was anathema to the party base. I find it hard to see him being nominated, especially after 1968 when the parties gave more power to the primaries and the base voters in deciding the nominee.

Because the scenario requires Humphrey to win in 1972. I don't think Rockefeller would be the nominee or that Humphrey would win reelection (cue the wall of text, of course).

OK then, why do you think Rockefeller would have been easier for a President Humphrey to beat than Reagan or other Republicans in 1972? Hell, why do you think ANY incumbent would have been disadvantaged in 1972 for that matter against ANY challenger? That flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and is akin to saying Kerry would have been a lock in 2008 if he won in 2004 or if Bush won that any Republican but McCain could have easily won that year, etc. It's a bold, unintuitive claim that requires a lot of explanation to be seriously examined for merit.

There is no wall of text, of course.

Yeah, less ad hominems in the wall than usual, I'm impressed. It's pretty intuitive to say that Humphrey would struggle to win reelection for the same reason Democrats struggled in 1972 IOTL, because of the collapse of the New Deal Coalition, civil rights, and the outcome of Vietnam (nice false equivalence on Kerry and McCain, I've noticed that's usually your tactic when your hyperbolic attempts at making Democrat loss maps look unreasonable don't line up with the facts). He may be able to patch things up with the anti-war left if he pulls out early, but risks losing supporters of the war, and vice versa if he stays in. Just because Humphrey is president doesn't mean the Democrats' infighting in 1968 goes away, just like Kerry's incumbency doesn't solve the fundamental problems that led to the financial collapse and war weariness of 2008.

A conservative Republican in 1972 would start out with a very strong map in the South, West, and traditional Republican strongholds in the Midwest and Northeast. Rockefeller risks losing the South to a third party, allowing Humphrey the possibility of winning in a similar fashion to his hypothetical 1968 victory.