• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Nixon loses in 1972, who is the GOP nominee in 1976?

TheKennedyMachine

TheKennedyMachine

Well-known member
Pronouns
she/her
Let's say Tricky Dick's presidency ends 2 years earlier ― it doesn't really matter how or who he loses it to ― maybe it's a Kennedy (Bobby or Teddy, your pick), or by the way of McGoverning, it's The Senator. Maybe the Chennault Affair too.

Anyways, the deal is Nixon has lost twice, 1960 and 1972 as well. How does the Republican Party progress from here?
 
Japhy said:
If Nixon lost respectfully and didn't go down for the ratfucking there's a decent chance he goes for 4.
Click to expand...

Is there a scenario where Nixon loses normally? I think the only manageable ways to make a Nixon loss in 1972 happen is if he goes down for the ratfucking.

Otherwise you'd have to bump the Yom Kippur War back to 1970/1971 to get an oil crisis going or have Burns engage in rapid contractionary policy. Of course, in the latter case, that just wouldn't be Nixon anymore. He blamed his 1960 loss on the IR hikes and refused to let a similar situation play out as he was running for re-election.
 
loose thoughts but if Nixon goes down in '72 surely this would discredit "Nixonianism" as understood then- social liberal, hawkish foreign policy- and the nominee in '76 would be a conservative, especially if we are also seeing a reaction to the Democrat who beats him
 
monroe templeton said:
loose thoughts but if Nixon goes down in '72 surely this would discredit "Nixonianism" as understood then- social liberal, hawkish foreign policy- and the nominee in '76 would be a conservative, especially if we are also seeing a reaction to the Democrat who beats him
Click to expand...
Nixon was far from a social liberal. In fact, he brought social conservatism back to the forefront through his politics of "law and order". All of the religious conservatism got its start afterwards.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
Nixon was far from a social liberal. In fact, he brought social conservatism back to the forefront through his politics of "law and order". All of the religious conservatism got its start afterwards.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware Nixon was not himself a social liberal, however what I'm talking about is the perception of Nixon as a 'social liberal' during his Presidency, one which faces an inevitable conservative backlash when it comes to the question of 1976.
 
Since Nixon's loss will likely be due to his own personal failures, I don't think any sort of movement is discredited. Reagan's probably the easiest answer, he had the money and grassroots power surrounding him. Agnew, if he's not frozen out by the higher-ups and/or arrested, could maybe siphon off some of Reagan's support. Claude Kirk could be a dark horse third man for that lane. James Buckley could also make a run for it, but I don't know if his patrician sensibilities translate well to a national republican primary.

Outside of the movement conservatives, there's Charles Percy, George Bush, Bob Dole, and maybe like Howard Baker. I think by now, Rocky's a little too old and too liberal to run. But hell, he wanted it bad enough.

In order, I think it's Reagan, Agnew (if he's not arrested), Bush, Dole (he might have the stain of corruption on him as Nixon's RNC chair), Buckley, Percy, Baker, Kirk.

Agnew likely only gets the nomination in a no-Reagan scenario. Maybe the Gipper falls down some stairs.
 
monroe templeton said:
Yes, I am aware Nixon was not himself a social liberal, however what I'm talking about is the perception of Nixon as a 'social liberal' during his Presidency, one which faces an inevitable conservative backlash when it comes to the question of 1976.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there was that much of a perception of him as a social liberal. Was it the EPA stuff?
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
I'm not sure there was that much of a perception of him as a social liberal. Was it the EPA stuff?
Click to expand...
For a long time Nixon quite infamously 'enjoyed' the reputation of a liberal, despite his more conservative inclinations and plans for his second term (this is shown in his supreme court choices shifting the court rightwards) due to the practical realities of governing in LBJ's immediate wake; the EPA was part of it, but equally were the FAP, desegregation, expanding medicare, increased spending in social insurance programmes, the Philadelphia Plan, OSHA, and endorsement of the ERA. While the details of a lot this betray his conservatism, such as abolishing welfare departments, treating desegregation as 'low key', and negotiating down from a single-payer healthcare system, by '72 Nixon still had a reputation for having implemented or tried to implement a fair amount of liberal policy.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
Is there a scenario where Nixon loses normally? I think the only manageable ways to make a Nixon loss in 1972 happen is if he goes down for the ratfucking.
Click to expand...
Being as Nixon is not a superhuman force and did lose normally in 1960, I'm sure he can lose without crimes being outed.
 
Japhy said:
Being as Nixon is not a superhuman force and did lose normally in 1960, I'm sure he can lose without crimes being outed.
Click to expand...
But Nixon lost then because a) he was ratfucked in Illinois and Texas (and I say that as a hardline democrat) and b) he looked creepy and weird on television.

When '68 rolled around, he was still creepy and weird, but he was creepy and weird and angry and effectively ran as an "I told you so" candidate. He was not going to let anyone get in his way and pulled out all the stops to win (up to and including treason). Then, in his presidency, he had the fed chair goof with interest rates to ensure he would have a favorable economy to run on under threat of blackmail.

He handled foreign policy competently enough for the average Joe to not to care about the war crimes, and the economy was good, so unless Vietnam went to shit or some other catastrophe happened (earlier oil crisis, economic downturn, etc), there's probably no natural reason he loses. Of course, Nixon resigned OTL because of an unforced error, an overcompensating just-making-sure move that saw the DNC get burglarized. Nixon was a natural schemer and it got him far, but it's not like he wasn't sloppy.
 
Last edited:
monroe templeton said:
For a long time Nixon quite infamously 'enjoyed' the reputation of a liberal, despite his more conservative inclinations and plans for his second term (this is shown in his supreme court choices shifting the court rightwards) due to the practical realities of governing in LBJ's immediate wake; the EPA was part of it, but equally were the FAP, desegregation, expanding medicare, increased spending in social insurance programmes, the Philadelphia Plan, OSHA, and endorsement of the ERA. While the details of a lot this betray his conservatism, such as abolishing welfare departments, treating desegregation as 'low key', and negotiating down from a single-payer healthcare system, by '72 Nixon still had a reputation for having implemented or tried to implement a fair amount of liberal policy.
Click to expand...
Right, but in his time he was considered a conservative. Back then, being a republican who supported a lean but still functional welfare state made you a mainstream conservative. It wasn't till after Reagan that the "Nixon-as-liberal" reputation got brought up.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
Right, but in his time he was considered a conservative. Back then, being a republican who supported a lean but still functional welfare state made you a mainstream conservative. It wasn't till after Reagan that the "Nixon-as-liberal" reputation got brought up.
Click to expand...
My point was that he was considered a liberal at the time, and then outlined the policies which garnered this reputation.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
But Nixon lost then because a) he was ratfucked in Illinois and Texas (and I say that as a hardline democrat) and b) he looked creepy and weird on television.
Click to expand...
OK, sure. But it was not beyond what had happened regularly. No one cared. If Nixon lost in a similar manner, it wouldn't be an impossible end for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top