1976 if Nixon wasn't implicated for Watergate

[538Electoral]

How would the 1976 election have looked?

[dw93]

For one thing Carter isn't the Democratic nominee. At best, he's a running mate and I think his chances at that would be slim. I can see Bayh, Udall, Church, or Scoop Jackson being the nominee for the Democrats.

For the Republicans, Ford won't run for the Presidency. He had no ambition to run for the job prior during his years in the House and only ran for President after the Presidency was thrust on him. Reagan most definitely still runs, with someone like Rockefeller or Charles Percy running against him from the center. Yes Nixon dreamed of having John Connally as a successor, but it doesn't happen due to corruption on Connally's part as well as him being a Democrat as recent as 1972 as well as his strong ties to LBJ. Nixon probably reluctantly backs the centrist candidate behind the scenes to stop Reagan. 50/50 chance it works, if it doesn't, he probably gives luke warm support, but support none the less to Reagan in the general, probably gives Reagan more support than Ike gave Nixon himself in 60.

The General election itself is close, the economy is still gonna suck so the Democrats would have that going for them as well as 76 being an open election after 8 years of a Republican in the White House. That said, the GOP would have an electoral advantage, Vietnam likely doesn't fall with Nixon staying in (though it would likely fall sometime after January 1977), so that as well as a lack of a war benefits them as well. In the end, it would all boil down to the nominees and the quality of the campaigns.

[MIKESOWELL]

For one thing Carter isn't the Democratic nominee. At best, he's a running mate and I think his chances at that would be slim. I can see Bayh, Udall, Church, or Scoop Jackson being the nominee for the Democrats.

For the Republicans, Ford won't run for the Presidency. He had no ambition to run for the job prior during his years in the House and only ran for President after the Presidency was thrust on him. Reagan most definitely still runs, with someone like Rockefeller or Charles Percy running against him from the center. Yes Nixon dreamed of having John Connally as a successor, but it doesn't happen due to corruption on Connally's part as well as him being a Democrat as recent as 1972 as well as his strong ties to LBJ. Nixon probably reluctantly backs the centrist candidate behind the scenes to stop Reagan. 50/50 chance it works, if it doesn't, he probably gives luke warm support, but support none the less to Reagan in the general, probably gives Reagan more support than Ike gave Nixon himself in 60.

The General election itself is close, the economy is still gonna suck so the Democrats would have that going for them as well as 76 being an open election after 8 years of a Republican in the White House. That said, the GOP would have an electoral advantage, Vietnam likely doesn't fall with Nixon staying in (though it would likely fall sometime after January 1977), so that as well as a lack of a war benefits them as well. In the end, it would all boil down to the nominees and the quality of the campaigns.

Excellent analysis of this "what if" scenario. I agree with just about everything you said here. I think Reagan may still be seen as too far right in 1976 and that may swing just enough voters to the Democratic candidate for a close victory.

[President Johnson]

Republicans would have won the election as Richard Nixon would have been a highly respected president, the economy was improving and the situation on the world stage somewhat stable despite the disaster in Vietnam. Nixon would have backed John Connally for president, who would have defeated a challenge from Ronald Reagan. Gerald Ford had no presidential ambitions and would have served out his term as vice president. Jimmy Carter would not have been the nominee for reasons already stated by dw93. I think he may have been a serious contender for the vice presidential selection, especially for a non-southern nominee.

President Connally would have had a troubled four years in the White House for a number of reasons, both domestically and on the world stage. Even though he would have handled them better than Jimmy Carter, he would have been dead on arrival in 1980, ending 12 years of Republican control in the White House. It's definitely an interesting scenario to think about the election of 1976 and way beyond.


Prediction for the election:

✓ Former Treasury Secretary John B. Connally (R-TX)/Representative Philip Crane (R-IL): 308 EV. (50.83%)
Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA)/Former Governor James E. Carter (D-GA): 230 EV. (46.95%)

[Sir Mohamed]

A pure tossup and Dems narrowly win if they nominate a Southerner.

✓ Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC)/Senator Frank Church (D-ID): 276 EVs.; 49.6%
Former Secretary John Connally (R-TX)/Senator Robert Dole (R-KS): 262 EVs.; 48.5%

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think Reagan wins the Republican nomination, Hollings wins the Dem nomination and Anderson runs third party and I think the map would probably look like this

Hollings/Mondale 291
Reagan/Connally  247


Anderson spoils the election in favor of Hollings has picks up more dissatisfied Republicans than Democrats this time around.

[morgankingsley]

I think Reagan wins the Republican nomination, Hollings wins the Dem nomination and Anderson runs third party and I think the map would probably look like this

Hollings/Mondale 291
Reagan/Connally  247


Anderson spoils the election in favor of Hollings has picks up more dissatisfied Republicans than Democrats this time around.

Is this what inspired your timeline

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think Reagan wins the Republican nomination, Hollings wins the Dem nomination and Anderson runs third party and I think the map would probably look like this

Hollings/Mondale 291
Reagan/Connally  247


Anderson spoils the election in favor of Hollings has picks up more dissatisfied Republicans than Democrats this time around.

Is this what inspired your timeline

No , there would be many differences between this election and the one in my TL even if the map is somewhat similar .


Reason I think Reagan wins the  nomination, is there wasn’t really anyone strong enough in the GOP to defeat him , and Hollings is cause he was in my opinion the strongest southerner they could possibly nominate .

[morgankingsley]

I think Reagan wins the Republican nomination, Hollings wins the Dem nomination and Anderson runs third party and I think the map would probably look like this

Hollings/Mondale 291
Reagan/Connally  247


Anderson spoils the election in favor of Hollings has picks up more dissatisfied Republicans than Democrats this time around.

Is this what inspired your timeline

No , there would be many differences between this election and the one in my TL even if the map is somewhat similar .


Reason I think Reagan wins the  nomination, is there wasn’t really anyone strong enough in the GOP to defeat him , and Hollings is cause he was in my opinion the strongest southerner they could possibly nominate .

Oh I see

[President Johnson]

I think John Connally would have been the nominee, not Reagan or someone else, because he was de facto Richard Nixon's chosen successor. Nixon would have controlled the party and been popular among the base, therefore managed to get his man through. The president wasn't that much of a Reagan fan in these days. He would picked Connally for vice president in 1973 if Watergate didn't weaken him, so he went with Gerald Ford who had the best chance for a smooth confirmation. Nelson Rockefeller was his second choice in 1973, but he also seemed to be too risky with Watergate looming.

[brucejoel99]

If you look at presidential politics after 1952, there's a tendency for the pendulum to consistently swing back & forth between the 2 parties. With the exception of 1980, one party will serve 8 years, then the other party serves 8 (Eisenhower 1953-1961, JFK/LBJ 1961-1969, Nixon/Ford 1969-1977, Carter 1977-1981, Reagan-Bush 1981-1993, Clinton 1993-2001, W. 2001-2009, Obama 2009-2017, Trump 2017-present). Reagan's victory over Carter in 1980 is the only election that disrupts this pattern (though Trump's potential defeat next year could very well be the second), with Carter serving 4 & Reagan/Bush serving 12.

Thus, I think the Democrats have the edge in 1976, regardless of who the Republican nominee is. (I'm not saying that a Democratic win is a certainty. I just think that the Democrats would have the edge.)

Assuming Agnew is still gone because of bribery/tax evasion, there's no clear-cut Republican front runner. Nixon's candidate would've been John Connally. Read anything about Nixon, & you'll find that he was absolutely mesmerized by Connally. There's no doubt that Nixon would've preferred Connally to Reagan or anybody else. If Nixon was still popular in 1975 & 1976, then he'd have used his power to push Connally every chance he had. The question is, would Republicans go for a man who was a Democrat as recently as 1973? But hey, it worked for Willkie in 1940, after all.

If it's not Connally, then Reagan is a strong candidate for the nomination. But I don't know if Reagan could win a national election in 1976. Reagan had a reputation in 1976 as being a conservative in the Goldwater mold. Sure, he won in 1980. But in 1980, he was a challenger, able to go on the offensive against a very unpopular Democratic incumbent during a time of inflation & a hostage crisis. He wouldn't have those advantages in 1976. He'd be a perceived Goldwater conservative having to defend the mixed record of an outgoing Republican administration, with his Democratic opponent going on the offensive. Reagan became very popular later, but 1976 wasn't 1980. Of course, if the Democrats had nominated a lousy candidate (which is always possible), then Reagan could've won after all.

If not Connally or Reagan, then the GOP nominee could be somebody like Rockefeller, Percy, Mathias, or maybe a Nixon cabinet member or Republican governor. With Agnew gone & Ford not running, you probably have 7 or 8 candidates, making it a free-for-all.

And it's definitely a free-for-all among the Democrats. I agree that Carter probably wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee. His honest outsider image wouldn't have resonated as much without Watergate. The same people run: Carter, Udall, Jackson, Shriver, Bayh, Brown, Church, etc. Maybe Mondale considers staying at nicer hotels than the Holiday Inn & stays in the race. Maybe people who didn't run in real life jump in after all, like Kennedy or Humphrey (though if Humphrey runs, then Mondale doesn't).

Bottom line: if the Democrats & Republicans nominate candidates roughly even in terms of quality, then I give the Democrats the edge, because of the natural swing of the political pendulum. If one party nominates a lousy candidate, then the other wins.

[Sir Mohamed]

If you look at presidential politics after 1952, there's a tendency for the pendulum to consistently swing back & forth between the 2 parties. With the exception of 1980, one party will serve 8 years, then the other party serves 8 (Eisenhower 1953-1961, JFK/LBJ 1961-1969, Nixon/Ford 1969-1977, Carter 1977-1981, Reagan-Bush 1981-1993, Clinton 1993-2001, W. 2001-2009, Obama 2009-2017, Trump 2017-present). Reagan's victory over Carter in 1980 is the only election that disrupts this pattern (though Trump's potential defeat next year could very well be the second), with Carter serving 4 & Reagan/Bush serving 12.

Thus, I think the Democrats have the edge in 1976, regardless of who the Republican nominee is. (I'm not saying that a Democratic win is a certainty. I just think that the Democrats would have the edge.)

Assuming Agnew is still gone because of bribery/tax evasion, there's no clear-cut Republican front runner. Nixon's candidate would've been John Connally. Read anything about Nixon, & you'll find that he was absolutely mesmerized by Connally. There's no doubt that Nixon would've preferred Connally to Reagan or anybody else. If Nixon was still popular in 1975 & 1976, then he'd have used his power to push Connally every chance he had. The question is, would Republicans go for a man who was a Democrat as recently as 1973? But hey, it worked for Willkie in 1940, after all.

If it's not Connally, then Reagan is a strong candidate for the nomination. But I don't know if Reagan could win a national election in 1976. Reagan had a reputation in 1976 as being a conservative in the Goldwater mold. Sure, he won in 1980. But in 1980, he was a challenger, able to go on the offensive against a very unpopular Democratic incumbent during a time of inflation & a hostage crisis. He wouldn't have those advantages in 1976. He'd be a perceived Goldwater conservative having to defend the mixed record of an outgoing Republican administration, with his Democratic opponent going on the offensive. Reagan became very popular later, but 1976 wasn't 1980. Of course, if the Democrats had nominated a lousy candidate (which is always possible), then Reagan could've won after all.

If not Connally or Reagan, then the GOP nominee could be somebody like Rockefeller, Percy, Mathias, or maybe a Nixon cabinet member or Republican governor. With Agnew gone & Ford not running, you probably have 7 or 8 candidates, making it a free-for-all.

And it's definitely a free-for-all among the Democrats. I agree that Carter probably wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee. His honest outsider image wouldn't have resonated as much without Watergate. The same people run: Carter, Udall, Jackson, Shriver, Bayh, Brown, Church, etc. Maybe Mondale considers staying at nicer hotels than the Holiday Inn & stays in the race. Maybe people who didn't run in real life jump in after all, like Kennedy or Humphrey (though if Humphrey runs, then Mondale doesn't).

Bottom line: if the Democrats & Republicans nominate candidates roughly even in terms of quality, then I give the Democrats the edge, because of the natural swing of the political pendulum. If one party nominates a lousy candidate, then the other wins.

I agree with most points. In my honest opinion, the key for Dems would have been a strong showing in the South, ergo nominating a Southerner like Hollings or Askew. From the early 1970s to the early/mid 1990s, the electoral map experienced a significant shift with the GOP becoming dominant in the South (Dem dominance at the state level lasted some years longer), while Dems made gains in the North Atlantic, the West Coast, New England and parts of the Midwest. Dixiecrats started voting GOP for prez, while Rockefeller Republicans started voting Dem. Until the 1990s, the GOP was still competitive in these now blue states, what required any Dem candidate to carry at least some southern states in order to win the EC.

Partly this explains why from 1968 to 1992, there was just one Dem prez for single 4 years. Carter in 1980 screwed up for other reasons and still came pretty close in several states of the Deep South. If not for Anderson, he would have done better in the EC. Dukakis and Mondale were bad fits for the South. Even Clinton underperformed previous Dems in the South. By 2000, the map changed that much, that a Dem could actually be elected prez without the entire South. Gore didn't even need FL, he would have won by carrying NH or NV.