1976 after 2 terms of HHH (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 10:52:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  1976 after 2 terms of HHH (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1976 after 2 terms of HHH  (Read 403 times)
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,805


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
« on: June 11, 2022, 01:58:26 AM »

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) ✓
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,805


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2022, 08:53:18 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2022, 09:00:43 PM by Atomic-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).
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,805


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2022, 10:33:54 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2022, 10:41:36 PM by Atomic-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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.