Was Reagan 1976 campaign better than his 1980 one

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know his 1980 resulted in a landslide win while 1976 was a loss, but 1976 was no where near a favorable year to Reagan as 1980 was.


In 1980:

-Reagan was the odds on favorite to win the primaries from the beginning, and had Hillary 2016 type inevitability entering the primaries (He was only GOP candidate polled against Carter throughout 1979)

- In the general election he faced an incumbent president with an approval rating in the 30s

- The economy had gotten significantly worse from 1976, and the past two years seemed as like there was one foreign policy disaster after another(both things what greatly harm an incumbent)


While in 1976

- Reagan was facing an incumbent president in a primary, with approvals in the 40s(which means he is liked by his own party voters)

- Reagan was viewed as a fringe Right Wing Extremist

- The Country's economy seemed to be getting better

- The Entire GOP establishment supported Ford(while in 1980 at least half if not more supported Reagan)

Despite all that Reagan came very very close to winning the nomination.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"More better"?

[RINO Tom]

My brain still hurts from reading the thread title, I'll get back to you on July 5th.

[Lord Admirale]

Reagan run a more better campaign than Reagan run his 1980 one.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bump

[Fuzzy Bear]

1980 was a better campaign because he won in 1980, and he won in a way that allowed him to reshape national politics for the next decade.  Indeed, Ronald Reagan ushered in a political realignment in 1980, cementing in the South and the Mountain West and Great Plains as the electoral base of the new, conservative GOP.

Reagan's hamhanded attempt to secure delegates from Pennsylvania by naming liberal Republican Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA) as his running mate killed his chances for the nomination.  It alienated conservative Senators James Buckley (R-NY) and Jesse Helms (R-NC) who should have been unquestionably in his camp come hell or high water.  There were other folks he could have picked that would have swung it for him; Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes probably would have accepted and could have swung the Ohio delegation (although Rhodes was two (2) years older than Reagan).  He could have offered it to Sen. Robert Taft, Jr. (R-Ohio) who might have accepted.  (Taft would lose in November to Howard Metzenbaum.)  That bungled move was the brainchild of John Sears, who came close to running the 1980 campaign into the ground before he was ousted in a coup of sorts, and William Casey was brought in to run the campaign.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1980 was a better campaign because he won in 1980, and he won in a way that allowed him to reshape national politics for the next decade.  Indeed, Ronald Reagan ushered in a political realignment in 1980, cementing in the South and the Mountain West and Great Plains as the electoral base of the new, conservative GOP.

Reagan's hamhanded attempt to secure delegates from Pennsylvania by naming liberal Republican Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA) as his running mate killed his chances for the nomination.  It alienated conservative Senators James Buckley (R-NY) and Jesse Helms (R-NC) who should have been unquestionably in his camp come hell or high water.  There were other folks he could have picked that would have swung it for him; Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes probably would have accepted and could have swung the Ohio delegation (although Rhodes was two (2) years older than Reagan).  He could have offered it to Sen. Robert Taft, Jr. (R-Ohio) who might have accepted.  (Taft would lose in November to Howard Metzenbaum.)  That bungled move was the brainchild of John Sears, who came close to running the 1980 campaign into the ground before he was ousted in a coup of sorts, and William Casey was brought in to run the campaign.

Without 1976 there is no 1980 though, while Reagan in 1980 was the odds on favorite entering the Republican Primary Race(he had Hillary level inevitability throughout 1979), and by the time he won the nomination he was favored to win the general election(https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=3252).

On the other hand in 1976 he was viewed as a fringe right wing B rated actor , and a joke candidate facing an incumbent president in the primaries(who also had Hillary level inevitability) . Despite that he was able to come so close to winning the primaries . He did that because he created a base in that campaign due to the amount of enthusiasm his campaign brought, and that base just kept growing on and on from 1975 all the way up till 1980 when he used it to easily win.

[Kingpoleon]

1980 was a better campaign because he won in 1980, and he won in a way that allowed him to reshape national politics for the next decade.  Indeed, Ronald Reagan ushered in a political realignment in 1980, cementing in the South and the Mountain West and Great Plains as the electoral base of the new, conservative GOP.

Reagan's hamhanded attempt to secure delegates from Pennsylvania by naming liberal Republican Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA) as his running mate killed his chances for the nomination.  It alienated conservative Senators James Buckley (R-NY) and Jesse Helms (R-NC) who should have been unquestionably in his camp come hell or high water.  There were other folks he could have picked that would have swung it for him; Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes probably would have accepted and could have swung the Ohio delegation (although Rhodes was two (2) years older than Reagan).  He could have offered it to Sen. Robert Taft, Jr. (R-Ohio) who might have accepted.  (Taft would lose in November to Howard Metzenbaum.)  That bungled move was the brainchild of John Sears, who came close to running the 1980 campaign into the ground before he was ousted in a coup of sorts, and William Casey was brought in to run the campaign.

I suspect either Buckley or Baker would have been the best choice. Baker himself was always very, very, very popular, and he would have solidified the South while bringing major contacts, especially from his time Chairing the RNC. Granted, John Connally may also have been a good choice to gain Texas's delegation and bring big money to Reagan's campaign.

[136or142]

Most of the media believed that George H W Bush was the frontrunner for the nomination in 1980.  For what it's worth, Saturday Night Live mocked Reagan as a 'washed up has been.'

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most of the media believed that George H W Bush was the frontrunner for the nomination in 1980.  For what it's worth, Saturday Night Live mocked Reagan as a 'washed up has been.'

No Reagan was the only Republican polled against Carter throughout 1979 , and according to wiki he was so far ahead in 1979 he didn't announce till late November.

[136or142]

Most of the media believed that George H W Bush was the frontrunner for the nomination in 1980.  For what it's worth, Saturday Night Live mocked Reagan as a 'washed up has been.'

No Reagan was the only Republican polled against Carter throughout 1979 , and according to wiki he was so far ahead in 1979 he didn't announce till late November.

I don't know why that would have been the case other than Reagan ran in 1976 and it was assumed he would run again in 1980.

I don't know if it's mentioned here, but many journalists considered George H W Bush to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination even though (as is mentioned here) Reagan consistently led in the polls: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9603/06/index.shtml

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most of the media believed that George H W Bush was the frontrunner for the nomination in 1980.  For what it's worth, Saturday Night Live mocked Reagan as a 'washed up has been.'

No Reagan was the only Republican polled against Carter throughout 1979 , and according to wiki he was so far ahead in 1979 he didn't announce till late November.

I don't know why that would have been the case other than Reagan ran in 1976 and it was assumed he would run again in 1980.

I don't know if it's mentioned here, but many journalists considered George H W Bush to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination even though (as is mentioned here) Reagan consistently led in the polls: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9603/06/index.shtml

Cause Reagan nearly took down an incumbent president in 1976, and HW was in no where near as strong as Ford was among the GOP establishment . Also after 1976 much of the GOP establishment warmed up to Reagan.