What if... the Watergate scandal breaks before the 1972 election?

[A18]

Do we get the first write-in president?

[Bono]

Schmitz

[© tweed]

If everything happened two years earler, minus Nixon's resignation of course, McGovern would have won.

But it's unlikely that it would have ahppened earlier as the motive behind watergate was to get inside information to fuel Nixon's campaign.

[memphis]

This would have to be the fastest that the American court system has ever worked, but Nixon would resign and Ford (assuming that Agnew is out also) would beat McGovern in a landslide.

[??????????]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

[A18]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

Yeah. That's why I said the scandal breaks before the election.

[??????????]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

Yeah. That's why I said the scandal breaks before the election.

I doubt enough time would have existed for much to have come of it. It didnt even come out until August 72.

[True Democrat]

I say a slight win for Nixon, with a lot of votes going to Schmitz.  The popular vote would be something like 46-45-7.

I might be totally wrong, but:

[Joe Republic]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

Yeah. That's why I said the scandal breaks before the election.

In which case, it probably wouldn't have made much difference.  It wasn't until long after the election that the real scandal set in.  At the time, the break-in would have been treated much like the tire-slashing incidents in Wisconsin were last year.

The political process simply wouldn't have moved fast enough between June 17th and November 7th for it to have made much of a difference to the outcome.

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree totally with Joe Republic.

I was going to reply to this, but after reading Joe Republic's statement, that pretty well sums up what I was going to say. 

[dazzleman]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

Yeah. That's why I said the scandal breaks before the election.

In which case, it probably wouldn't have made much difference.  It wasn't until long after the election that the real scandal set in.  At the time, the break-in would have been treated much like the tire-slashing incidents in Wisconsin were last year.

The political process simply wouldn't have moved fast enough between June 17th and November 7th for it to have made much of a difference to the outcome.

I agree.  Not only that, that is exactly what did happen.  The Watergate scandal was known to the public when Nixon was re-elected in 1972.

[J. J.]

Um, didn't Watergate happen IN 1972? lol

Yeah. That's why I said the scandal breaks before the election.

In which case, it probably wouldn't have made much difference.  It wasn't until long after the election that the real scandal set in.  At the time, the break-in would have been treated much like the tire-slashing incidents in Wisconsin were last year.

The political process simply wouldn't have moved fast enough between June 17th and November 7th for it to have made much of a difference to the outcome.

I agree.  Not only that, that is exactly what did happen.  The Watergate scandal was known to the public when Nixon was re-elected in 1972.

I'm also going to point out that a lot of the "impeachable" stuff involved the cover-up, some of it 1973.

[A18]

The scandal, not the break in.