lawrencecostin
Banned
If hubert humphrey hadn't got cancer in 1976 would he have run? would he have won the nomination?
hubert humphrey in 1976 w/out cancer
- Thread starter lawrencecostin
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Humphrey mused privately that the year the prize was seemingly there for the taking, he found he didn't have the energy.
So, the single POD may be him not getting cancer.
(this may have been in Jules Witcover's Marathon)
So, the single POD may be him not getting cancer.
(this may have been in Jules Witcover's Marathon)
Not only can I see him winning the general, I can also see him doing better against Ford than Carter did, as I think Humphrey would've campaigned much better than Carter. Keep in mind, Humphrey came very close to winning what should've been a Nixon landslide in '68, 76 would've been a cake walk for him.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
and Hubie might even have a fair to middling chance of facing the headwinds of '79 and '80!
If he listens to the right economic advisors and let's the American public learn along with him. The single most important economic number is quarterly growth rate. In second and third place, and we can debate which is which, is inflation and unemployment. At least that's my view.
And the case can be made that it was Reagan's deficit spending that finally brought us out of doldrums and recession starting in '83.
If he listens to the right economic advisors and let's the American public learn along with him. The single most important economic number is quarterly growth rate. In second and third place, and we can debate which is which, is inflation and unemployment. At least that's my view.
And the case can be made that it was Reagan's deficit spending that finally brought us out of doldrums and recession starting in '83.
At the very least, Humphrey wouldn't be challenged from the left in 1980 like Carter was, and could probably work with Congress a lot better (getting universal healthcare maybe)
This would be an incredibly interesting TL, imo. Humphrey could campaign on the simple fact that had he been elected eight years earlier, all the vices of the Nixon administration would be largely gone.
Look, I followed the 1976 primary campaign, and despite all the talk from the pundits at the time, the electorate was well and truly tired of Humphrey by then. He ran in '72 and lost to McGovern, by '76, he was widely regarded as a has-been. Scoop Jackson was the candidate of choice by big labour, Udall got the liberal, suburban vote in the early contests, and Carter ran away with it after the Pennsylvania primary. Even Jerry Brown [aka Gov. Moonbeam] of California, and Idaho Sen. Frank Church won primaries late in the contest. It just was not going to happen for Humphrey that year. Now, if you want to do a TL about a brokered convention in '76, then maybe the party bosses might have given Humphrey the nod.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Unlike Carter, wouldn't have enjoyed Southern support. What states does he carry?
Humphrey could put a southerner on the bottom of the ticket. Dale Bumpers? Lloyd Bentsen?
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I'll give him Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, DC, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon , Hawaii, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Missouri for 314 electoral votes.
This map makes me think he'll need a westerner on the ticket. Humphrey/Jackson maybe?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Plus, George Wallace. One guy wrote a biography of Carter and said his biggest unheralded electoral success was defeating Wallace.
(this writer is Peter Bourne)
But I quite agree, the challenge for Humphrey in '76 would be the primary.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And if elected, well, here's the GDP quarterly growth rate from the St. Louis Federal Reserve (seasonally adjusted).
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA
1979:
Notice the negative growth rates for the second and third quarters in 1980. That's not good. That's what a President Humphrey would need to solve from both a policy and politics perspective.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA
1979:
Q1: 6.5%
Q2: 2.7
Q3: 2.4
Q4: 1.3
1980: Q1: 1.4
Q2: -0.7
Q3: -1.6
Q4: 0.0
(the graph will give an exact number when you move your arrow over it)Notice the negative growth rates for the second and third quarters in 1980. That's not good. That's what a President Humphrey would need to solve from both a policy and politics perspective.
Last edited: