1976: Gerald Ford vs. Scoop Jackson vs. Eugene McCarthy

[Rooney]

In 1976 President Ford faced a true mountain to conquer in order to win reelection. Staglfation was raging, gas was very expensive, the American quality of life was at a nadir, the Republicans were tarnished by Watergate, Ford had pardoned Nixon and foreign policy was a total mess under the management of Dr. Kissinger. On top of this Governor Reagan nearly beat Ford assaulting him on this whole laundry lists of political sins and then took control of the 1976 RNC in Kansas City. Things were simply awful for President Ford. 

Political journalists and historians opined that one of the main reasons why the 1976 election was close was due to the fact that Jimmy Carter was a highly flawed, very green national candidate. There was really no other reason why the campaign was so close.

Let's say that Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, the grand old neo-conservative and "Senator from Boeing", manages to win the nomination by beating Carter in Iowa and New Hampshire, leading the Georgia governor to lack the media following and money to best George Wallace in Florida.  Senator Jackson is nominated by the Democrats in Madison Square Garden. Jackson taps Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen for vice-president.

This Democratic ticket picks up some anger from the party's left flank. Former Senator Eugene McCarthy announces an independent bid for president and selects consumer activist Ralph Nader for vice-president. The McCarthy/Nader ticket manages to land itself on the ballot in all 50-states.

How would a Ford vs. Jackson vs. McCarthy race in 1976 play out? 

[Sumner 1868]

Ford wins easily despite the economy. Jackson's nomination would be a catastrophic disaster for the Democratic Party so soon after Vietnam. Jackson has none of Carter's southern appeal, and you'll likely see McCarthy get several points in the popular vote and throw states to Ford. Some on the New Left may even vote Ford simply to stop a neoconservative like Jackson.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Gerald Ford / Bob Dole              46.7%  425
Henry Jackson / Lloyd Bentsen   41.6%  113
Eugene McCarthy / Ralph Nader 10.9%

[Sumner 1868]

I'm having difficulty thinking of a state outside Washington that he can win for sure. New York may vote for him because of his Zionism, but even that's probable McCarthy territory. It's easy to see why Jackson never came close to winning the nomination.

[Del Tachi]

Just ran a simulation in President Elect 1988 with the following results

Ford/Dole - 531 electoral votes; 38,031,712 (48%)
Jackson/Bentsen - 7 electoral votes; 30,434,996 (39%)
McCarthy/Nader - 0 electoral votes; 9,934,076 (13%)

In a repeat of 1972, the GOP is able to limit the Democratic nominee to one state (this time Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia.

McCarthy's best state is his native Minnesota, where he is able to win 16% of the vote.  He places third in every single contest except the one in the District of Columbia, where he bests Ford by a mere 1,300 votes.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Just ran a simulation in President Elect 1988 with the following results

Ford/Dole - 531 electoral votes; 38,031,712 (48%)
Jackson/Bentsen - 7 electoral votes; 30,434,996 (39%)
McCarthy/Nader - 0 electoral votes; 9,934,076 (13%)

In a repeat of 1972, the GOP is able to limit the Democratic nominee to one state (this time Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia.

McCarthy's best state is his native Minnesota, where he is able to win 16% of the vote.  He places third in every single contest except the one in the District of Columbia, where he bests Ford by a mere 1,300 votes.

Only 3% between his nationwide total and his best state? Thats kinda strange, but I suppose that it's not the most accurate simulator.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It would have been quite the romp for the Democrats, 371-164. 

I would suspect that Jackson would have picked Carter as his running mate.  This would have been a credible choice as (A) Carter supported Jackson in 1976 and (B) Jackson and Carter were perceived (at the time) as close, ideologically.

McCarthy would have been a non-factor in the election.  Jackson, on the other hand, would have been able to carry many of the Southern states Carter did because (A) Jackson had credibility as a pro-military Senator, a key factor in many Southern states laden with military bases, (B) having a VP on the ticket was a bigger deal for Southern Governors in 1976 than it would be after Reagan, and (C) Jackson was NOT associated with the far left of the Democratic party that was a turnoff in the South.  On the other hand, Jackson was a strong union candidate who had, nonetheless, endorsed McGovern after he was nominated, so he would have been given gravitas for party regularity.

Carter nearly lost the election of 1976 for one reason; he was deliberately wishy-washy, as befitted a man whose straddling the ideological divide made him look like a guy trying to win liberal votes in order to govern as a moderate-conservative, or a guy trying to win conservative votes to govern as a moderate-liberal.  This was his strategy, and it won him the nomination, but it was a strategy that couldn't stand the light of day.  It almost cost him the election, and it worked just enough to get him elected in a campaign where he had a 33 point lead at one point.  Jackson would have been a credible centrist without being a phony; he was HONESTLY pro-military, yet progressive in a number of foreign policy initiatives, and had a solid track record of being pro-labor.  The left held Jackson's anti-Vietnam War posture against him, and that was one thing in 1972, but Jackson was a good sport in endorsing McGovern afterward.  Instead, they gambled with Carter, and the long-term gamble did not pay off for the Democrats.

[Sumner 1868]

It would have been quite the romp for the Democrats, 371-164. 

I would suspect that Jackson would have picked Carter as his running mate.  This would have been a credible choice as (A) Carter supported Jackson in 1976 and (B) Jackson and Carter were perceived (at the time) as close, ideologically.

McCarthy would have been a non-factor in the election.  Jackson, on the other hand, would have been able to carry many of the Southern states Carter did because (A) Jackson had credibility as a pro-military Senator, a key factor in many Southern states laden with military bases, (B) having a VP on the ticket was a bigger deal for Southern Governors in 1976 than it would be after Reagan, and (C) Jackson was NOT associated with the far left of the Democratic party that was a turnoff in the South.  On the other hand, Jackson was a strong union candidate who had, nonetheless, endorsed McGovern after he was nominated, so he would have been given gravitas for party regularity.

Carter nearly lost the election of 1976 for one reason; he was deliberately wishy-washy, as befitted a man whose straddling the ideological divide made him look like a guy trying to win liberal votes in order to govern as a moderate-conservative, or a guy trying to win conservative votes to govern as a moderate-liberal.  This was his strategy, and it won him the nomination, but it was a strategy that couldn't stand the light of day.  It almost cost him the election, and it worked just enough to get him elected in a campaign where he had a 33 point lead at one point.  Jackson would have been a credible centrist without being a phony; he was HONESTLY pro-military, yet progressive in a number of foreign policy initiatives, and had a solid track record of being pro-labor.  The left held Jackson's anti-Vietnam War posture against him, and that was one thing in 1972, but Jackson was a good sport in endorsing McGovern afterward.  Instead, they gambled with Carter, and the long-term gamble did not pay off for the Democrats.

Here's a few problems:

1. Jackson supported Vietnam. Carter's biggest advantage was that nearly all his opponents had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Act, whereas he was basically just a peanut farmer in 1964. Jackson supported the war until late 1974, way too late in the eyes of many on the left.

2.States like Mississippi and Texas voted for Carter solely because they wanted a Southern Christian president. Ford wins those states even with Carter as Jackson's running-mate. The only running-mate that might throw these states to Jackson is George Wallace, whose selection would tear the party to shreds for obvious reasons.

3. Jackson's pre-SALT cordiality with Nixon is going to be an issue during the campaign. Nixon is especially loathed during this time period, and it would kill the Watergate fatigue advantage any other Democrat would have.

4. McCarthy was already a slight factor in 1976. With pre-2000 Nader as his running-mate, he's guaranteed at least three or four points in the popular vote.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The South was far more Democratic in 1976 then in 1992.  Virginia was the only Southern state to not have a majority of Democrats in their House delegation, and they were at 5-5 after 1974.  Eight of eleven Southern states had Democratic Governors and all of them had majorities in their state legislative houses.

Jackson was a pro-Vietnam War Senator, and that hurt him in the primary, but he was a liberal on other issues, and he had endorsed McGovern.  The Vietnam War was over and Democrats were desperate to come up with a win. 

With a Southerner on the ticket, Mississippi and Texas may well have gone for Jackson.  Texas was far, far more Democratic than it is now, and Jackson was the kind of Democrat that would have played well there.  Jackson had been pro-military, anti-Communist, and this would have kept him in the good graces of most Southern politicians

Jackson was popular among Jews and was popular amongst labor.  The anti-war contingent in the Democratic Party was growing, but Jackson could have mollified them, and the kind of stinging defeat the Democrats suffered in 1972 brought many Democrats to their senses.  Carter, himself, was an unlikely Democratic candidate, but he was needed to (A) neutralize Wallace and (B) be ideologically amorphous while being acceptable to liberals.  Jackson was more rooted and grounded in the traditional constituencies of the Democratic party, and his Presidency would not have unraveled in the same way that Carter's did.

[Sumner 1868]

The South was far more Democratic in 1976 then in 1992.  Virginia was the only Southern state to not have a majority of Democrats in their House delegation, and they were at 5-5 after 1974.  Eight of eleven Southern states had Democratic Governors and all of them had majorities in their state legislative houses.

Jackson was a pro-Vietnam War Senator, and that hurt him in the primary, but he was a liberal on other issues, and he had endorsed McGovern.  The Vietnam War was over and Democrats were desperate to come up with a win. 

With a Southerner on the ticket, Mississippi and Texas may well have gone for Jackson.  Texas was far, far more Democratic than it is now, and Jackson was the kind of Democrat that would have played well there.  Jackson had been pro-military, anti-Communist, and this would have kept him in the good graces of most Southern politicians

Jackson was popular among Jews and was popular amongst labor.  The anti-war contingent in the Democratic Party was growing, but Jackson could have mollified them, and the kind of stinging defeat the Democrats suffered in 1972 brought many Democrats to their senses.  Carter, himself, was an unlikely Democratic candidate, but he was needed to (A) neutralize Wallace and (B) be ideologically amorphous while being acceptable to liberals.  Jackson was more rooted and grounded in the traditional constituencies of the Democratic party, and his Presidency would not have unraveled in the same way that Carter's did.

Many southern states had Democratic legislatures well into the 2000s. Observe the thin margins Carter won many Southern states. It's clear states like Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and possibly Florida only voted for Carter because he was a Southerner.

The Vietnam War is still fresh in voters minds. That's not going away because Jackson is pro-labor. And 1976 is more a question of personality than issues. A slightly bumbling man is easier to relate to than a establishment Senator, whereas a Christian peanut farmer invokes grudging respect.

[Mr. Smith]

Jackson would've won California