Humphrey/Carter vs. Reagan/Schweiker vs. McCarthy vs. Maddox

[LiberalLibertarian]

Hello, my name is Dodge Landesman, and I'm new to the forums, but I've always been extremely interested in people who've tried but failed to make the nomination. First, let me give some background as to what really happened:
Hubert Humphrey said he was not a candidate in 1976, but said he'd be willing to accept the nomination and be drafted if the delegates could not decide on a candidate (and, in reality as well, he did win North Dakota and his home state of Minnesota on a write-in victory, and was mentioned as a possible candidate up until Carter was nominated). On the Republican side, Reagan said that he'd choose Pennsylvania Richard Schweiker as his runningmate to get the nomination from Ford.
So here's my scenario:
George Wallace does impressively well in the south, and actually ties with Carter. Jerry Brown also pulls an upset over Mo Udall in neighboring Arizona, for they feel that Udall doesn't have a chance. Frank Church also pulls an upset against Scoop Jackson in Massachusetts and New York. With Jackson and Udall out, Brown, Carter, Wallace, and Church all head to the convention with considerable and almost equal delegate strength. With the delegates being unable to decide upon the nominee, Hubert Humphrey proclaims that he will gladly accept a draft. The delegates, respecting his elder statesman status, become keen on his, and Jackie and Ted Kennedy choose to endorse Humphrey (this is not farfetched, for Jackie Kennedy said publicly she was voting for Anderson in 1980, and of course, Kennedy challenged Carter that same year) for the nomination. They both despise Wallace and Carter, and lack faith in Brown or Church that they could be nominated. Humphrey wins with 28% of the vote.


The Republican nomination:
Reagan barely squeaks by Ford (Reagan 51%, Ford 49)in the Oregon primary, and picks up 30 delegates. Though the convention will still be close, Reagan is atleast a tiny bit ahead instead of completely tied with Ford. To soothe the moderate delegates, Reagan promises to name moderate-liberal Pennsylvania senator Richard Schweiker as his runningmate.


The General Election:
The older generation, who revered Humphrey as a sensible, anti hippy liberal, comes out in droves to support their lovable candidate. Though the younger generation stays home, with 2% voting for Independent candidate Eugene McCarthy, due to their disgust of "the status quo" candidate Hubert Humphrey, and conservative southern candidate Hubert Humphrey. Many souther liberals who are turned off by the staunch pro civil rights record of both Carter and Humphrey, vote for States Rights candidate Lester Maddox. Though Carter manages to hold on to Georgia, some essential southern states go Republican, and Maddox wins 2% of the vote as well. The crucial swing state of Pennsylvania (usually blue though) goes Republican because of Scheiwker, with California also going red. I'll leave it to you to determine the results:

Thanks for participating, and I think this is all actually plausible.

[Lincoln Republican]

Welcome to the Forum, LiberalLibertarian.

I agree, Also Rans can be an interesting study.

Reagan/Schweiker                  300
Humphrey/Carter                    202
McCarthy                                   20
Maddox                                     16
                 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

HHH victory, 287-251:

[Dr. Cynic]

HHH was not exactly anti-youth. Alot of younger people had admired him before and after the 60s.

Also, he would not have run in 76.... He already knew he was dying of cancer.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Reagan/Schweiker                  300
Humphrey/Carter                    202
McCarthy                                   20
Maddox                                     16
                

How does Gene McCarthy manage to win three states in this 1976 scenario Winfield when in the RL Presidential Election of 1976, McCarthy only managed to win 0.91% of total ballots cast. I can assure you that he wouldn't have won any states.

[Lincoln Republican]

Could be, but McCarthy winning something makes for a more intresting election.

In reality, under the right circumstances, McCarthy could have done very well in these three independently minded, anti-war states.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Could be, but McCarthy winning something makes for a more intresting election.

In reality, under the right circumstances, McCarthy could have done very well in these three independently minded, anti-war states.

Why did he do so poorly, then, IRL?

[Joe Republic]

Could be, but McCarthy winning something makes for a more intresting election.

In reality, under the right circumstances, McCarthy could have done very well in these three independently minded, anti-war states.

You're confusing the Vermont of 1976 with the Vermont of today.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Could be, but McCarthy winning something makes for a more intresting election.

Whilst it would be more so interesting election if Senator McCarthy had won a state or two in the 1976 Presidential Election but it is simply implausible, particularly in the Vermont of 1976. McCarthy winning a state or two in 1976 is just as likely as Mitt Romney, had he been nominated losing Utah, it couldn't have happened.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, here's a possible, though implausable explanation. 

McCarthy won the Oregon primary in 1968, therefore, he has some popularity in the state.

Wisconsin, long an independently minded state, is next door to McCarthy's home state of Minnesota.

McCarthy placed very well in the New Hampshire primary in 1968, ultimately driving LBJ from the race, and New Hampshire is next door to Vermont.

There are four candidates running, which would split the vote.

This is really a stretch I know, but the main reason I have McCarthy winning 3 states in 1976 is to make for a more interesting election.

Would it actually have happened?  Very unlikely. 

[LiberalLibertarian]

Thanks all for your support. To Dr. Cynic, a lot of young people hated Humphrey because of the convention, and their veiw of hi essentially "stealing" the nomination fro Eugene McCarthy. This would cause youth backlash to hurt Humphrey in some crucial northwestern states and give it to Reagan. They'd also hate his conservative runningmate, Carter (that's who I meant, I stupidly said Humphrey). McCarthy would not win a state, but would be a big spoiler, as would Maddox be a spoiler in some essential southern states. Maybe Alabama, NC, and Missississippi? And Maddox and McCarthy really ran, but I think they didn't get any support because of the two tickets. I'm working on my own electoral map now. I think Reagan's going to win this. Too bad, Hubert would've been a great president, but hey, Reagan was pretty good too, and Schweiker would have been a great veep.