Talk Elections

And would Reagan or Dole or someone else have been the Republican nominee?

Reagan would be the GOP nominee; no way to butterfly that away.  Also, it's likely that a crapload of Dems would flock to the primaries; there would be a lot of people in line to succeed 12 years of scandal-ridden GOP rule.  If the 6-year itch is bad, the 10-year itch in 78 would've been a nightmare for Ford.  So all in all, Teddy would likely not win the Dem primary due to perception that he was establishment, and that he'd probably split the liberal vote with the (likely) entrances of both Walter Mondale and Gary Hart; the latter would probably come out on top.  If either Ted or Hart won the Dem nomination, the GOP would have a field day with the sex scandals from both; so depending on how bad the scandals take with the American people, it's a defeat for either side at least as severe as 2008; it wouldn't be close.  So that being said, Reagan likely could've pulled it off but it would be tough.  If he wins, he loses in 1984 and the GOP lose the Congress badly in 1982.  If he loses, the GOP has a chance at making a comeback in 1982, and fields a likeable, smalltown guy like Paul Laxalt in 1984.  Laxalt would likely win, assuming that the sex scandals are used properly

On the Hart issue, for one in 1980 he was a one-termed seeking re-election. Secondly, his scadal(s) didn't come out until '87/'88 so there's a chance that might not be an issue.

Chappaquiddick would have been a drag on him, but if he put his heart into the campaign and coalesced the liberal field around him, I think he could have won the primary. Giving a speech like the one he did at the '80 DNC and holding his own in the debates would have likely produced a nice win.

I guess I was thinking of Hart because of Then Everything Changed by Jeff Greenfield; Ford narrowly wins the electoral vote because he doesn't make his gaff about "people in Eastern Europe aren't and will never be under Soviet domination during a Ford administration"; then Hart wins in 1980.  Carter was really more of a conservative than Gerry when it boils down to their positions on issues, and America would be much less conservative without Ronald Reagan (the people; Reagan wasn't really a conservative when you look at his record)

If Gerry means Gerald Ford, then I'd beg to differ. They were ideologically close together & both were moderate. However, by 1976, Ford had steadied himself & was becoming much tougher with the Soviets. Carter still had his two years of naïveté ahead of him before he became tougher on the foreign front. Economically & socially, they were roughly in the same boat & were the two most fiscally conservative administrations up until Clinton.

Yes they were the same ideologically, but with Ford there'd be no Reagan, and Ted Kennedy with a Democratic Congress scares the crap out of me.  At least with Reagan we got someone with balls and a GOP Senate

Well you were just saying that Carter was more Cpbservative than Ford, & that Reagan wasn't a real Conservative.

I meant that Reagan's not a fiscal conservative, and Ford greatly expanded the Great Society, making him worse than Carter, who attempted to reform welfare and Medicaid but Tip O'Neil stopped him in his tracks

With a Ford wins, I can see Democrats making some gains at Senate in 1978. They could keep seats in New Hampshire and Iowa, while gaining Dole's seat at special. Republicans would think more before defeat Clifford Case at Primary. Helms, Tower and Domenici would end being unseated and even Thurmond and Baker would be at risk in 1978. Democrats would think into putting someone that can creat a bridge between Southern and Northern voters. Strongest names would be Mondale, Grasso (before cancer), Jerry Brown, Frank Church, Ed Muskie, Hugh Carey, Reubin Askew and Daniel Moynihan. Brown and Grasso can attract many people into primaries, although Askew is the favourite, unless another southern guy (Bumpers, Bentsen or even Wallace appears). I think that Askew would be safest choice for general, but I think that Church is also a great option, although I think that nomination would go to Askew anyway.
In Foreign Policy, Ford would have to manage a pressure from Torrijos for giving Panama Channel. In Nicaragua, i think that Somoza would still receive help from USA and hold on. I doubt that Camp David agreements would occur as in OTL, because Begin would be less willing to cede. This means Sadat' survival. Iran's fate was certain. Neither Kissinger or Ford could save the Shah. This means 2nd Oil Crisis and more of economic troubles that doomed Carter. Afghanistan can be a gate of salvation towards Republicans, like Embassy's crisis at Iran.
Republicans would beg to Reagan to run, in order to giving a "saving face" result. Dole would skip 1980 as he knows that landslide will come against him. Moderate wing can give Reagan a free run, knowing that this election is lost, but knowing that Brown that would be favourite to get Democrat nomination is not strong, they can field a candidate between Hartfield, Percy, Matthias and Weicker. Rumsfeld and Bush can try too, like Howard Baker, if re-elected to Senate.
In Primary, my 1st option would be Grasso, but if she doesn't run, I'd go to Brown and after this, to Church.

Kennedy wouldn't have run. There's a good reason he ran in 1980; everyone was pressuring him to run and he pretty well knew that he had no chance at unseating Carter. He's got too much baggage.

With Ford in the White House, and thus continuing detente, I'd say a hawkish Democrat would win in 1980.

Henry Martin Jackson.

Greenfield is right about the Democrats gaining seats and the Camp David agreements, but definitely had a different opinion on Iran. When writing the book, he talked to Brent Sowcroft who was Ford's NSA, and Sowcroft said this about Iran: "Carter had Vietnam angst. He thought we had been wrong; he thought America would have to pay a price. With Carter, the U.S. would've been on the defense. Ford didn't have any of that." A Ford administration, he says, would have worked with Iran to help nip Iranian demonstrations and insurgency in the bud. Sowcroft also told Greenfield what the Middle East would hypothetically look like in this scenario. Of course, it's impossible to predict Alternate History exactly as there are so many factors and scenarios involved.

That is tricky. By 1976, Ford had definitely gained more teeth in foreign policy and by then had booted Kissinger out of NSA and had brought in Rumsfeld--definitely more hawkish that "realist" Kissinger--as Secretary of Defense. I think in foreign policy Ford would move steadily to the Right during his hypothetical second term.

Would ford have had any coat tails?  And if so, would the GOP have had a chance in Hell of taking either house of Congress by 1984?

Ford's coattails at 1976 would be at maximum keeping seats at Michigan and Ohio and maybe keeping Democrats from winning seats at Nebraska and Tennessee. I think that in best of probabilities, he could have prevented a filibuster-proof Democratic majority, that could be transformed at veto-proof, what means a lame-duck 2nd half of mandate, but I doubt this because there were many moderate democratics at Senate, although things could get radicalized without Baker at helm of Republican's bench.

Interesting; does Reagan help the GOP out in 78 and 80 (the latter by heading the ticket)?

 No. Ted Kennedy was unelectable.

^^^^

A Reagan/Kennedy smackdown would be the ultimate slugfest of alternate historians dreams.

Being a Kennedy, I think Ted would have had a good chance of becoming president.

God forgive me for saying this, but there is a curse on the Kennedys and if Teddy got near the White House, I believe somethign horrible would have happened...

True.

You're a Kennedy?  How are you related (not to be a stalker or anything, but that's pretty cool ;).)  Not to go off topic, but my dad once crashed a fundraiser of his when he was in MA (I think it was when he was running against romney in 94.)

He's talking about Ted being a Kennedy (I think). :P

Ya youre probably right :P

Sorry, I did not mean to imply I am KENNEDY. I was referring to Ted being a Kennedy.

If it's any consolation, I am a distant relative of William Jennings Bryan.

Ted Kennedy's biggest obstacle to the White House (besides Chappaquidick) was his lack of interest in the real estate. Considering that he only ran once despite being mentioned as a potential front-runner in every election from 1968 to 1988, it seems pretty clear that Teddy didn't really want to be President. Now I don't mean to say that he wouldn't have liked being President. He would have been the most progressive President since Johnson or FDR. Hard to deny the benefits there. But Ted didn't really want to be President. He didn't have the insatiable urge to win that Nixon or Reagan or the Clinton's had. I would argue that he only ran in 1980 because he saw Carter ripping the Democratic Party (and the nation) apart.

If Kennedy runs, he probably wins the nomination and has a good shot in the general. But I could very well see him deferring to another progressive. I would imagine Scoop Jackson, Gary Hart, Hugh Carey, Dale Bumpers, Walter Mondale, John Glenn, and a slew of other candidates would run if Teddy didn't. Even if Reagan is the GOP nominee (quite likely) the Democrats are still the favorites to win. It was simply a good time to be in opposition, especially with Ford's inability to effectively drive home his message.

Neat.  So you're a Republican how?

He is a relative by marriage. Too distant to influence my family politics.

I am a Republican because my dad was a Gary Hart democrat turned Republican and my mother rebelled to my grandmother's right.

Haha, understandable.  My Grandma is a Republican beacuse she liked Ike "because he was tall and German" and her husband was a conservative, Strom Thurmond/George Wallace/Reagan Democrat.  My dad's a Mitt Romney Republican now.

Sorry about your dad. :)

Haha, it's okay, I'm working on him ;)  He's a closet Paulbot, I know it.