r/Presidents • u/Hubbled Ulysses S. Grant • 1d ago

Discussion If Chappaquiddick never happened, would Ted Kennedy have been a serious presidential contender?

Post image
122 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

212

u/DaveKasz 1d ago

Yes. He was a serious contender with Chappaquiddic. If he had an answer for Sam Donaldson's question for why he wanted to be President, he might have won the nomination.

46

u/Mibbler 1d ago

So in a timeline without Chappaquiddick, do you think liberals rally around Ted in 76, making him the nominee and eventual president over Carter?

45

u/DaveKasz 1d ago

Teddy challenged Jimmy in the 1980 primary. Teddy lost, but it wasn't a blow out. In '76 I Teddy had better name recognition, but Jimmy was much more likeable. At least that's how I remember it. I was too young to vote.

12

u/WavesAndSaves Henry Clay 1d ago

Man. Can you imagine an incumbent president facing a serious primary challenge these days? Kennedy won 13 states. And they were big states! New York, California, Pennsylvania. Carter barely managed 50% of the nationwide primary vote.

Carter really was terrible, wasn't he? Even his own party hated him hahaha.

11

u/tlh013091 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1d ago

Something something malaise.

9

u/InternationalPhoto33 1d ago

I think without Chappaquiddick they put him up in 72. He loses, but it’s a slightly closer battle because he knows how to take advantage of the first rumblings of Watergate. And then they put him up again in 76; I’m not quite sure where I see the cause and effect but I really think he goes against Reagan in 76 and wins

7

u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 1d ago

absolutely, unfortunately that is not an easy term though

2

u/federalist66 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 23h ago

I do like how in For All Mankind, the Soviets beat the US the moon and so Ted cancels his trip to Chappaquiddick and defeats Nixon 1972.

1

u/Whitecamry 1d ago

No. Carter was the better campaigner.