Was Gerald Ford's 1976 performance in the general election actually impressive?

[RRusso1982]

I actually wonder if the debate gaffe made a difference.  When Ford said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," that was a huge "WTF did he just say" moment.  In the end, with a swing of 6,000 votes in Ohio and 15,000 votes in Wisconsin, Ford would have won.  Both states Rust Belt states with huge Eastern European populations.  Carter's margin in those states were small enough that that gaffe could have made a difference.  If Ford hadn't made that gaffe, Carter almost certainly still would have won the popular vote, but at the very least, it could have been like 2000 with a couple of very close states that could have taken days or weeks to resolve. 

[Pericles]

I actually wonder if the debate gaffe made a difference.  When Ford said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," that was a huge "WTF did he just say" moment.  In the end, with a swing of 6,000 votes in Ohio and 15,000 votes in Wisconsin, Ford would have won.  Both states Rust Belt states with huge Eastern European populations.  Carter's margin in those states were small enough that that gaffe could have made a difference.  If Ford hadn't made that gaffe, Carter almost certainly still would have won the popular vote, but at the very least, it could have been like 2000 with a couple of very close states that could have taken days or weeks to resolve. 

I've heard Ford kept rising in the polls after that, maybe it was more of a media thing. In a close election though, very slight changes could end up mattering.

[Alben Barkley]

He kept California which is surprising. He did well in Michigan too. It was close which is impressive considering the damage to the GOP that Nixon caused.

No it isn't. Carter was a garbage choice for California.

McGovern sent that state very far left of the nation, but since he got trashed and didn't pull a Goldwater sort of loss to it [a pity it wasn't Montana, South Dakota, or Oregon that was the odd one], no one seemed to care.

But Dems decided to chase an antiquated and fading base rather than build to the future, because the math was still there for The South, and The Midwest was too shaky. Fair enough, but not helpful come 1980.

Yeah, I'm sure if a Northern Democrat had won in 1976, the 1980 slaughter could totally have been avoided!

LMFAO.

Unless you're implying the best course would have been to deliberately lose in 1976? Crazy 3D chess, 20/20 hindsight kind of s--t.

[Alben Barkley]

Let's not forget to that LBJ could've landed himself in hotwater leaking the info about Nixon sabotaging the peace talks due to the fact that how LBJ obtained the info was illegal wire taps. Granted, he wouldn't have gotten in nearly as much trouble as Nixon, but still that might've played a role in it.

Not if it was an anonymous leak to the major newspapers. He likely would have been dead by the time he was implicated in it.

On top of this, LBJ made the info freely available to Humphrey and ultimately made it his choice what to do with it or not. That tells me that implicating himself probably was not a top concern of his. We're talking about f--king LBJ here. This was a "win at all costs" man if ever there was one. I don't doubt he would have leaked the tapes himself, and let the press speculate as to how they were acquired all they want, had he been running. But he let Humphrey make the call, which is why Humphrey ultimately took the blame.