If No Watergate, who wins 1976 election?

[HelloLegend]

Probably not Jimmy Carter right? He was a dark horse candidate who won the 76 election because he was the "honest" candidate. Without Watergate, his attributes do not come into play with the same emphasis.

Who takes over as President in 1977?

 

[Nicksplace27]

Why not Ford?

 

[HelloLegend]

Ford is a reasonable answer.

 

[Dave Howery]

didn't Reagan make a pretty strong bid for the nomination in '76? Any chance he could have been the GOP candidate? Also, even with no Watergate, are we assuming that Agnew still has his problems that led to his resignation?

 

[The Mists Of Time]

I agree about Ronald Reagan. He made a strong showing in 1976 and if Ford had not been a sitting president running for a second term, Reagan might well have won in 76.

I very much like the idea of Gerald R. Ford being President, but to do that some other things have to also happen.

If we are still assuming that Vice-President Spiro Agnew was forced from office, then Gerald Ford would probably have become Vice-President as in OTL, and then run in 1976 with President Nixon's support.

I'm not sure Ford would have sought the Presidency on his own, it was not the job he really wanted. What he wanted most of all was to be Speaker Of The House Of Representatives.

To make Gerald R. Ford President without Watergate you need a POD in 1968.

In 1968 Americans are tired of how the Democrats are handling Vietnam, tired of President Johnson, and tired of the Democrats. In 1968 they elect Richard Nixon as President and they give the Republicans control of Congress. At the time Ford was House Minority Leader, so the Republicans winning Congress in 1968 would have made Gerald Ford the Speaker Of The House, the job he wanted most of all. So in this timeline Ford gets to serve in the office he wanted more than any other and may then have felt differently about seeking the Presidency.

In this ALT there is no Watergate, and no scandal forcing Vice-President Agnew from office.

Republicans retain control of Congress in the 1972 and 74 elections. This puts House Speaker Ford in an excellent position to run for President. Both President Nixon and Vice-President Agnew urge Ford to run for President in 76, and he decides to do so. In this scenario Ford would have been in a very strong position to win the Presidency and would probably have served two terms from January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1985.

Note, at the time it wasn't popular for a sitting Vice-President to run for President, so I don't see Agnew running in 76 had he remained in office. Nixon in 1960 was the first sitting Vice-President to run for President since Thomas Jefferson in 1800. It wasn't until the first President Bush in 1988 that it became popular for a sitting VP to seek the Presidency.

Without events like Agnew being forced from office and Ford becoming VP. I don't think Ford would have sought the Presidency without first getting to serve as House Speaker.

 

[HelloLegend]

didn't Reagan make a pretty strong bid for the nomination in '76? Any chance he could have been the GOP candidate? Also, even with no Watergate, are we assuming that Agnew still has his problems that led to his resignation?

Reagan in 76 is also a reasonable answer.

 

[Ward]

As a person from Fords home district he never wanted the Job . I don't think
he would of run for the office . Rember he was winning his seat with 60-70% of the votes . He might of run till he was 80 years old. He did thing for the people in his District and we support him.

 

[Glen]

didn't Reagan make a pretty strong bid for the nomination in '76? Any chance he could have been the GOP candidate? Also, even with no Watergate, are we assuming that Agnew still has his problems that led to his resignation?

It seems probable from what I've read that without Watergate, Agnew's problems wouldn't have been, um, highlighted, to distract attention away. Seems strange, but anyway....

Without Watergate, Nixon likely remains a very important influence in the Republican party in 1976. I think his choice would be in a very good position.

I am not certain that choice would have been Reagan. Know it wouldn't have been Ford.

 

[HelloLegend]

It seems probable from what I've read that without Watergate, Agnew's problems wouldn't have been, um, highlighted, to distract attention away. Seems strange, but anyway....

Without Watergate, Nixon likely remains a very important influence in the Republican party in 1976. I think his choice would be in a very good position.

I am not certain that choice would have been Reagan. Know it wouldn't have been Ford.

Who else in the GOP? Who else on the Dems?

 

[Douglas]

Scoop Jackson, Gary Hart, Lloyd Bentsen, Mo Udall, and George Wallace come to mind for the Democrats, while Nelson Rockefeller and Bob Dole are possibilities for the Republicans.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

If there had been no Watergate, I think the most likely answer is Ronald Reagan and I base that answer on the strong showing Reagan made in 1976. Had it not been that a sitting Republican President was seeking a second term in 1976, then it's a good bet that Reagan would have gotten the 76 Republican nomination and won the election as well.

Without Watergate Jimmy Carter would probably never have become President. So no Watergate eliminates the Carter Presidency.

No Watergate probably eliminates Gerald Ford's Presidency as well. Ford didn't want to be President and would have been happy to continue serving in Congress, and the people in Ford's district would have continued voting for him for as long as he wished to serve. Ford might well have become Speaker Of The House in TTL (the job he wanted most of all), and he would have made an outstanding House Speaker. The question of Ford depends on what happens to Agnew in TTL. It's possible Ford might still have become VP under Nixon.

Had there been no Watergate, we would probably have never heard about Vice-President Agnew's problems, or if we had they would have been little more than a blip on the political roadway.

So had there been no Watergate I think the list of Presidents would have been as follows.


Richard Nixon - 1969-1977

Ronald Reagan - 1977-1985

George H. W. Bush - 1985-1993

Bill Clinton - 1993-2001

George W. Bush - 2001-2009


By the way, in TTL I think the Republicans would have taken control of both houses of Congress in the late 1970's or early 1980's which would have made Gerald R. Ford the Speaker Of The House Of Representatives.

 

[Tgibbs]

If you look at presidential politics after 1952, there's a tendency for the pendulum to consistently swing back and forth between the two parties. With the exception of 1980, one party will serve eight years, then the other party serves eight (Ike '53 to '61, JFK-LBJ '61 to '69, Nixon-Ford '69 to '77, Carter '77 to '81, Reagan-Bush '81 to '93, Clinton '93 to '01, Bush II '01 to '09). Reagan's victory over Carter in 1980 is the only election that disrupts this pattern, with Carter serving four and Reagan-Bush serving twelve.

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

Assuming Agnew is still out for the bribery/tax evasion thing, there is no clear-cut Republican front runner. Nixon's candidate is John Connally, the Democrat-turned-Republican former governor of Texas. Read anything about Nixon, and you find he's absolutely mesmerized by Connally. There's no doubt Nixon would have preferred Connally to Reagan or anybody else. If Nixon is still popular in 1975 and 1976, he'd use 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? It worked for Willkie in 1940.

If it's not Connally, 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 and 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 adminstration -- while his Democratic opponent goes on the offensive. Reagan became very popular later, but 1976 isn't 1980. Of course, if the Democrats nominate a lousy candidate -- which is always possible -- Reagan could win after all.

If not Connally or Reagan, the GOP nominee could be Rockefeller, Percy, McMathias, or maybe a Nixon cabinet member or Republican governor. With Agnew gone and Ford not running, you probably have seven or eight candidates. It's a free-for-all.

And it's a free-for-all among the Democrats. I agree Carter is probably not the Dem nominee. His honest outsider image doesn't resonate as much without Watergate. The same people run -- Carter, Udall, Jackson, Shriver, Bayh, Brown, Church, etc. Maybe Mondale stays in a nicer Holiday Inn and stays in the race. Maybe people who didn't run in OTL jump in after all, like Kennedy or Humphrey. (If HHH runs, Mondale doesn't.)

Bottom line: if the Democrats and Republicans nominate candidates roughly even in terms of quality, the Dems have the edge, because of the natural swing of the political pendulum. If one party nomintes a lousy candidate, the other wins.

 

[Tgibbs]

One other thought: the winner in 1976, regardless of party, is defeated in 1980. The inflation, high gas prices, and Iran hostage crisis would have doomed any president serving from 1977 to 1981.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

I think Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 at least in part because of how he himself handled various issues as President.

We might still have had high gas prices. But another President might have handled the economy differently. Had someone else been in The White House we might not have had inflation and interest rates going through the roof as they did under Carter.

Another reason the Iranians may have chosen to take the Americans hostage when they did is they may have seen America under President Carter as being weak and thought we wouldn't fight back. The Iranians might not have thought that if someone else had been President.

Whoever was elected in 1976 or whichever party won the Presidency in 1976, they might have easily been re-elected in 1980 depending on how he handled his Presidency and the issues, and on how the American people viewed his record as President.

 

[luakel]

Connally will definitely get involved, and Nixon will support him, but IIRC he had some scandals in the 70's. So if he gets the nod, I wouldn't be suprised if the Dems win.

Richard Nixon - 1969-1977

Ronald Reagan - 1977-1985

George H. W. Bush - 1985-1993

Bill Clinton - 1993-2001

George W. Bush - 2001-2009

Why does the GOP hold control for 24 years? The longest a party controlled the presidency since the days of Reconstruction was only 20, so I'd say the Dems will probably take back the oval office in '85 if not sooner.

 

[Ward]

I think Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 at least in part because of how he himself handled various issues as President.

We might still have had high gas prices. But another President might have handled the economy differently. Had someone else been in The White House we might not have had inflation and interest rates going through the roof as they did under Carter.

Another reason the Iranians may have chosen to take the Americans hostage when they did is they may have seen America under President Carter as being weak and thought we wouldn't fight back. The Iranians might not have thought that if someone else had been President.

Whoever was elected in 1976 or whichever party won the Presidency in 1976, they might have easily been re-elected in 1980 depending on how he handled his Presidency and the issues, and on how the American people viewed his record as President.

Rember that the prise of an average car went from 5,200 in 1975 to 10,000 in 1980 . Alot of companys closed down during these years also .
a freind of mine was making $8.25 hr working in a factory in 1978 and was laid off . He did not make that much again until 1991 . He lost his house and every thing he had in those 12 years . I rember buying Baby food for 3cents a jar for the daughter in the early 70's and by 1990 it was runing 58 cents a jar. if not more .
And if you ever check some of the footage of the presidents vists to south america a couple of the south Ameriocan coutrys had penal units as the horon guard for his state vist.

 

[Landshark]

Why does the GOP hold control for 24 years? The longest a party controlled the presidency since the days of Reconstruction was only 20, so I'd say the Dems will probably take back the oval office in '85 if not sooner.

I was wondering about that myself. Would the American public really one party in office for 24 straight years and 32 years out of 40?

My guess would be that unless the person in office, either GOP or Dem, between 1977 and 1981 was spectacularly successfull in domestic and international politics they would be out in the 1980 election.

Also remember that whoever was elected in 1976 would have to deal with post Vietnam America.

 

[Max Sinister]

@Ward: 3 cents a jar, not 30 or so? Is that correct?

And didn't many US car factories have to close, because people decided to buy foreign cars instead, because they guzzle less gas? Everything is connected. So I guess, whoever wins in 1976, loses in 1980.

Would be ironic if Carter defeated Reagan ITTL...

 

[mycroft holmes]

For this thread, what do you guys mean by no Watergate? Do you mean the spying is never discovered or that it never took place? Down the road, it makes a big difference. No secret keeps forever.

I think some of the more interesting effects of a Watergate-less world would be in other things than a list of Presidential succession. For instance, Woodward might never have become famous. Consider how much influence he still has today and other scandals he has worked on. In a larger sense, the 'crusading' ideal of the press might have stayed dormant for a while or died altogether without a Watergate scandal. Would we hold our politicians to such an intense scrutiny today without Watergate? Kennedy got away with fairly blatant adultery in the pre-Watergate era that went unreported. And don't give me that "well he didn't lie about it" bull, he sure lied about it to his wife and family and every photo op he made with Jackie as the perfect couple was a lie to the American people, just a tad less blatant than another I can think of. And yet I seem to remember a certain contretemps involving another President that people got real upset over.

Other affects. What if Ford never got a chance to have a Chief of Staff named Rumsfeld? Or another one named Cheney?

 

[Calgacus]

i would say rockefeller in 76. kennedy in 80. why the hell not?