Reagan beats Ford

[greenchristian]

Ronald Reagan was only 43 delegates behind Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican Primaries. If he'd done just a little bit better he would have won the Republican nomination.

Would he have gone on to beat Carter in the general?

If so, how would a Reagan administration have weathered the oil crisis? Would Reaganomics still have become a thing?

And would an earlier Reagan presidency have sped up or slowed down the (probably inevitable) collapse of the Soviet bloc?

[therealriga]

One difference I can think of in foreign policy would have been Central America. Reagan was campaigning hard in 1976 against the handover of the Panama Canal to Panama, arguing: "We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours, and we're going to keep it." In the real world, the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaty agreed to hand it back in 1999 and good relations followed with Panama allowing the CIA to establish listening posts and use Panama to funnel weapons and cash to the Nicaraguan rebels. Without the 1977 treaty a more hostile attitude on the part of Panama probably would have resulted with knock-on effects elsewhere.

[sirbenjamin]

It would've been a bit, well, weird.

When was the last time an incumbent President failed to win the nomination of their party to fight for a second term? Chester A. Arthur maybe?

[timrollpickering]

Sept 26, 2021 20:24:58 GMT sirbenjamin said:

It would've been a bit, well, weird.

When was the last time an incumbent President failed to win the nomination of their party to fight for a second term? Chester A. Arthur maybe?

Ouch this is complicated because of the smoke and mirrors surrounding it all before the 1970s. The following cases spring to mind:

Johnson in 1968 although officially he was undecided and running in the primaries through draft campaigns and favourite sons until it became clear he'd lose.
Truman in 1952 abandoned plans after an early primary loss.
Wilson may have had hopes of another term in 1920 but he didn't exactly know what was going on then.
Cleveland in 1896 is near impossible to determine but once the convention passed a Free Silver platform any candidacy was hopeless and he was not proposed.
Arthur wasn't really fighting in 1884 because of his illness.
Johnson tried for the Democrat nomination in 1868 despite having been elected on the "National Union" Republican ticket.
Pierce in 1856 is a clearcut case of defeat as is Fillmore in 1852.

[greenchristian]

Sept 26, 2021 20:41:46 GMT timrollpickering said:

Sept 26, 2021 20:24:58 GMT sirbenjamin said:

It would've been a bit, well, weird.

When was the last time an incumbent President failed to win the nomination of their party to fight for a second term? Chester A. Arthur maybe?

Ouch this is complicated because of the smoke and mirrors surrounding it all before the 1970s. The following cases spring to mind:

Johnson in 1968 although officially he was undecided and running in the primaries through draft campaigns and favourite sons until it became clear he'd lose.
Truman in 1952 abandoned plans after an early primary loss.
Wilson may have had hopes of another term in 1920 but he didn't exactly know what was going on then.
Cleveland in 1896 is near impossible to determine but once the convention passed a Free Silver platform any candidacy was hopeless and he was not proposed.
Arthur wasn't really fighting in 1884 because of his illness.
Johnson tried for the Democrat nomination in 1868 despite having been elected on the "National Union" Republican ticket.
Pierce in 1856 is a clearcut case of defeat as is Fillmore in 1852.

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 probably counts as well, though this would have been for a third term.

Of course the Ford Presidency was already a bit weird, because he was never elected to the office of President or Vice President, and because he took over mid-term whilst the previous President was alive. Both of these things are, to date, unique.

[timrollpickering]

Roosevelt in 1912 and also Grant in 1880 and Van Buren in 1844 were former Presidents seeking to come back rather than incumbents dropped. A few others were also considered for comebacks - Van Buren did a third party run in 1848, Fillmore was nominated by both a third party and the last embers of the Whigs in 1856, Cleveland was considered for a bid in 1904 when Gold Democrats were recapturing the party, Roosevelt had he lived would have been a strong contender in 1920 and Ford was considered the only man who could stop Reagan in 1980 but decided he preferred being an ex President. I think Bush Sr gave a formal decline for 1996 but that was more a formality to release other candidates.

[adlai52]

Ford came very close to beating Carter in 1976, Carter's strength in the South - last time the region went wholesale for a Dem nominee - compensating for a lackluster performance n the Midwest. Would Reagan have been better placed to chip away at his Southern strength? Perhaps attracting ex-Wallace supporters?

The flip side is could Reagan in '76 have driven away some swing voters and if this would have outweighed any gains among social conservatives. His robust support for Nixon, could also have been a major handicap so soon after Watergate.

The Coalition that elected Regan in 1980 was probably not mature enough to win him the presidency four years earlier and a non-incumbent Carter was a much stronger candidate than he would be as a weakened incumbent President.

I think Reagan could win in 1976 albeit with a slightly different coalition - which would store up trouble in the future. He would also have faced a much tougher first term than he did after 1980. If that was the case, you could have had Ted Kennedy vs Reagan in 1980.

[timrollpickering]

Carter didn't get the South completely - Ford carried Virginia and Oklahoma.

One a uniform swing Ford would have needed to flip Ohio (11,116 vote margin for 25 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (35,245 votes for 11 electoral votes). There were a few other states where Carter's margin was less than 5% and they had another 5 electoral votes to add to Ohio's such as Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, Missouri or New York (which could have won it for Ford even without Ohio but was the biggest margin of the seven). Going the other way Ford had some narrow states as well - Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Oklahoma, Virginia and South Dakota were all narrower than Wisconsin for starters.

Demographic statistics only seem to start in 1976 but suggest Ford did better with black voters than any subsequent Republican candidate (16%) but the next best performances were Reagan in 1980 tied with Trump in 2020 (14%). Would Reagan in 1976 have accelerated the decline?

[jamesg]

As noted above, Panama would have been a bid deal in a Reagan Administration starting 1977. Moreover, across the Latin American region as a whole many disputes would have likely gone a different way. Carter eased back somewhat in full-throttled support for some of those thoroughly nasty regimes: Reagan probably wouldn't have. Butterflies would surely wipe the Falklands War from history.