What do you think?
Rate this book
Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency 1972-1976
Americans pick their President in a grueling elimination contest in which the candidates, their families, friends & political associates are put to punishing tests of endurance, integrity, ethics & mental stability. During the campaign, not only dreams but also principles, careers & personal relationships are dashed or strengthened. The candidate who survives may be the fittest, or merely the most durable, the most pliable or the luckiest. To a country scarred by scandal, disillusioned by unkept promises & wearied of politics, the '76 presidential election seemed no different from previous ones. But Witcover makes it clear, in this vivid account, that this time it was very different. On the Democratic side the field was wide open. On the Republican side an unelected incumbent faced a strongly partisan challenger in a demoralized & fragmented party. There were more volatile issues, new rules, new influences. In this 1st post-Watergate race it couldn't be politics as usual. The campaign proceeded with a new awareness of the effects of mass-media techniques of propaganda & manipulation, & the role money plays. Marathon is the story of what political life was like from the time the '76 campaign began--for the Democrats in late '72 & for the Republicans within months of Nixon's fall in '74. It's the story of the army of people who took part in the marathon--the chief competitors, the behind-the-scenes enthusiasts, the party pols who organized the race, the people who sustained or tripped up the runners. It's also the story of life on the stump for both candidates & reporters. Morris Udall, Ronald Reagan, Frank Church, Gerald Ford, Henry Jackson & dozens of others--this is the story of their day-to-day experiences fighting for political control & survival. Most important, it's the story of Jimmy Carter--who he is, where he came from & how he reached the finish line. Witcover covered the presidential campaign from start to finish--in interviews with all the candidates (during the primaries, the campaign proper & after the election), scores of campaign aides & key politicians, pollsters, reporters on the trail & voters. His is a detailed account of the major events in politics during the past four years, the issues & nonissues, the personality clashes, the policy debates, the technicalities (His analysis of the new election-finance laws & their effect on politics & the media is essential), &, above all, the participation & response of the voter. Never before was there a presidential race like this one. Never before has there been a book that has told the story so comprehensively & accurately.
702 pages, Hardcover
First published July 18, 1977
2 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 9, 2012
Any self-respecting political junkie has read at least one edition of Theodore White’s classic “Making of the President” series (covering the 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972 quadrennial contests). White broke new ground in his coverage of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon clash and, in doing so, created a whole new genre. White’s work is rightfully considered the gold standard in presidential campaign histories with a grandiose style, elegant writing that sometimes veered towards hyperbole, fashioned to capture the epic, even when the campaigns (Johnson-Goldwater in 1964; Nixon-McGovern in 1972) weren’t really that epic at all.
Few have matched White, although many have tried. Jules Witcover was the first to challenge for the role of White’s successor in 1976 with “Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972-1976”. While lacking White’s eloquence, Witcover more than made up for in an engaging, easy – sometimes breezy – style that put you in the center of action in the 1976 campaign.
About eighty percent of the book covers the primary contests, which saw Jimmy Carter’s emergence out of nowhere to the shock – and dismay – of many in the Democratic establishment and Ronald Reagan’s bitter fight with Gerald Ford, which almost overturned the Republican order. The chapters provide a veritable “who’s who” list of the men (they were still all men) who came to dominate the political backrooms and work in the corridors of power for years to come: a young up-and-coming Dick Cheney, an overly ambitious George H.W. Bush, a partisan fire-breathing Bob Dole, the sly and smooth Jim Baker.
The real story about America’s Bicentennial campaign, as Witcover adroitly captures, is not that Jimmy Carter won but that Gerald Ford almost pulled off the greatest upset in American history. As political junkies know, Carter was nominated solely on his image as an outsider. In post-Watergate America Carter’s brand was golden; but because he never articulated a clear vision, his support was no more than a mile-wide. This was made manifestly clear in the fall campaign when Carter discovered that among key Democratic constituencies his support was only an inch-deep. By election night, the race was so close that if slightly more than 9,500 (!) votes had switched in Hawaii or Ohio, Ford would have won the presidency in his own right.
President Ford was down by 33 points in the Gallup poll after the Democratic convention. Ford’s comeback can be attributed entirely to a beautifully orchestrated media campaign that utilized tough negative ads (negative by 1976 standards; pale by today’s standards) that raised serious questions about Carter’s trustworthiness, emphasized his ordinary American appeal, offered a compelling only-in-America life story, and carefully laid out the narrative of how he responded to the aftermath of the unprecedented Watergate crisis and was dealing head-on with a sluggish economy that was passed on to him by his much-despised successor, Richard Nixon. For his part, Carter was plagued by gaffes and hindered by an awkward campaign style that left many Americans uneasy. (I read this in the summer of the 2012 presidential race; I must admit some of what I read was eerily similar to what we were seeing unfold between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The more things change…well you know the rest.)
Ironically, I finished reading “Marathon” on the evening of August 8 – exactly 38 years to the day that Richard Nixon announced his resignation. Nixon’s shadow dominated the 1976 contest. But for Watergate, Jimmy Carter never would have had a chance. And if it were not for his personally courageous but politically terrible pardon of Nixon, Ford may have won. Residual anger over that pardon, coupled with an unfortunate gaffe in the second presidential debate, likely cost Ford the election. (On a personal note, as a history buff I must say that America definitely got it wrong in 1976. We should have kept Ford.)
“Marathon” is nothing like any of the “Making of the President” books. And I find this to be one of its chief strengths. While of the same genre, Witcover didn’t try to copy White; he simply followed the same format in his own style as a shoe-leather political reporter. Despite his liberal leanings, Witcover worked his sources over late-night cocktails, was enthralled by the game but never became enthralled by the players (very much unlike White) and because of this was able to offer a fairly dispassionate, fair account of the contest. Witcover has delivered one of the best campaign chronicles ever and one that should not be overlooked by political animals.
Few have matched White, although many have tried. Jules Witcover was the first to challenge for the role of White’s successor in 1976 with “Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972-1976”. While lacking White’s eloquence, Witcover more than made up for in an engaging, easy – sometimes breezy – style that put you in the center of action in the 1976 campaign.
About eighty percent of the book covers the primary contests, which saw Jimmy Carter’s emergence out of nowhere to the shock – and dismay – of many in the Democratic establishment and Ronald Reagan’s bitter fight with Gerald Ford, which almost overturned the Republican order. The chapters provide a veritable “who’s who” list of the men (they were still all men) who came to dominate the political backrooms and work in the corridors of power for years to come: a young up-and-coming Dick Cheney, an overly ambitious George H.W. Bush, a partisan fire-breathing Bob Dole, the sly and smooth Jim Baker.
The real story about America’s Bicentennial campaign, as Witcover adroitly captures, is not that Jimmy Carter won but that Gerald Ford almost pulled off the greatest upset in American history. As political junkies know, Carter was nominated solely on his image as an outsider. In post-Watergate America Carter’s brand was golden; but because he never articulated a clear vision, his support was no more than a mile-wide. This was made manifestly clear in the fall campaign when Carter discovered that among key Democratic constituencies his support was only an inch-deep. By election night, the race was so close that if slightly more than 9,500 (!) votes had switched in Hawaii or Ohio, Ford would have won the presidency in his own right.
President Ford was down by 33 points in the Gallup poll after the Democratic convention. Ford’s comeback can be attributed entirely to a beautifully orchestrated media campaign that utilized tough negative ads (negative by 1976 standards; pale by today’s standards) that raised serious questions about Carter’s trustworthiness, emphasized his ordinary American appeal, offered a compelling only-in-America life story, and carefully laid out the narrative of how he responded to the aftermath of the unprecedented Watergate crisis and was dealing head-on with a sluggish economy that was passed on to him by his much-despised successor, Richard Nixon. For his part, Carter was plagued by gaffes and hindered by an awkward campaign style that left many Americans uneasy. (I read this in the summer of the 2012 presidential race; I must admit some of what I read was eerily similar to what we were seeing unfold between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The more things change…well you know the rest.)
Ironically, I finished reading “Marathon” on the evening of August 8 – exactly 38 years to the day that Richard Nixon announced his resignation. Nixon’s shadow dominated the 1976 contest. But for Watergate, Jimmy Carter never would have had a chance. And if it were not for his personally courageous but politically terrible pardon of Nixon, Ford may have won. Residual anger over that pardon, coupled with an unfortunate gaffe in the second presidential debate, likely cost Ford the election. (On a personal note, as a history buff I must say that America definitely got it wrong in 1976. We should have kept Ford.)
“Marathon” is nothing like any of the “Making of the President” books. And I find this to be one of its chief strengths. While of the same genre, Witcover didn’t try to copy White; he simply followed the same format in his own style as a shoe-leather political reporter. Despite his liberal leanings, Witcover worked his sources over late-night cocktails, was enthralled by the game but never became enthralled by the players (very much unlike White) and because of this was able to offer a fairly dispassionate, fair account of the contest. Witcover has delivered one of the best campaign chronicles ever and one that should not be overlooked by political animals.
March 14, 2020
Man, this was a good read. 600+ pages felt like nearly nothing because of how captivating Marathon proved to be. Witcover has a genuine talent that few others do (Theodore White being another example) of telling the story of a campaign and giving you the right level of detail but also keeping it entertaining. Little things stand out, like the way he described each of the candidates running. His slightly-caustic, usually smile-inducing digs at the candidates were great. Did I mention, this is one of the best sources for learning about the 1976 primaries? I felt decidedly under-exposed to this campaign, and now I feel like a lowkey expert.
And his description of the general? Stellar. Witcover manages to craft a plotline for the general, underpinned by certain themes like both candidates shooting themselves in the foot. And he builds the ups and downs marvelously too. I wish he would have talked more about Eugene McCarthy's third-party bid, but I also understand giving minimal coverage to a guy who didn't even get 1%. So if you want to learn about 1976 from an author who really captures the mood of the country and the ebbs and flows of the campaign trail, check out Marathon.
And his description of the general? Stellar. Witcover manages to craft a plotline for the general, underpinned by certain themes like both candidates shooting themselves in the foot. And he builds the ups and downs marvelously too. I wish he would have talked more about Eugene McCarthy's third-party bid, but I also understand giving minimal coverage to a guy who didn't even get 1%. So if you want to learn about 1976 from an author who really captures the mood of the country and the ebbs and flows of the campaign trail, check out Marathon.
July 20, 2007
Recently, when I found myself in the hospital for several days, I re-read this book, which is an enormously entertaining narrative of the 1976 presidential campaign. Thirty years later, it's hard to recall a time when presidential nominations weren't settled in primaries, as they are now. Jimmy Carter's decision to enter every presidential primary in 1976 was considered unorthodox, even a gamble, when the conventional wisdom was to pick and choose the primaries a candidate would enter, thus allocating resources and time to those primaries in which a candidate stood a good chance of winning. Carter's rise from obscurity to the nomination and, eventually, election as president couldn't be duplicated today. But it is enjoyable to relive the time when it was not only possible, it was achieved. It's also enjoyable to read about the Republican battle for the nomination between then-President Ford and former California Governor Ronald Reagan. Ford emerged with a narrow victory, setting the stage for Reagan to win his party's nomination four years later.
January 10, 2023
Marathon: Pursuit of the Presidency 1972 -1976 is a highly detailed look at the ‘76 U.S. presidential election by Jules Witcover, who as a Washington Post journalist covering the races was in a prime position to write about these four years with sharp and discerning perspective.
It’s interesting to compare political races of today with those in the 70s, when Ford and Carter didn’t start their post-convention campaigning until after Labor Day (Ford didn’t even begin running TV ads till after the first debate at the end of September). Also explored are the candidates’ gaffes and how the campaigns recovered (or not).
My eyes began to glaze over as Witcover dug deeply into Mississippi’s pivotal role in deciding the Ford/Reagan primary, and the differing methods of choosing primary delegates nearly fifty years ago are complex.
As a well-regarded member of the press, Witcover throughout the book makes a good defense of the election’s media coverage, of which the candidates, then as now, were critical.
One final note about 1976: this was a time when the political aspirations of a U.S. presidential nominee could nearly be derailed by his saying the word ‘screw’ in a printed interview.
It’s interesting to compare political races of today with those in the 70s, when Ford and Carter didn’t start their post-convention campaigning until after Labor Day (Ford didn’t even begin running TV ads till after the first debate at the end of September). Also explored are the candidates’ gaffes and how the campaigns recovered (or not).
My eyes began to glaze over as Witcover dug deeply into Mississippi’s pivotal role in deciding the Ford/Reagan primary, and the differing methods of choosing primary delegates nearly fifty years ago are complex.
As a well-regarded member of the press, Witcover throughout the book makes a good defense of the election’s media coverage, of which the candidates, then as now, were critical.
One final note about 1976: this was a time when the political aspirations of a U.S. presidential nominee could nearly be derailed by his saying the word ‘screw’ in a printed interview.
August 25, 2020
Good book, but maybe too much detail at well over 600 pages. The follow up 1980 election book is about 300 pages so I assume they decided on a less detailed approach.
You’ll definitely learn a lot about the Reagan campaign as a harbinger of the 1980s. It also covers the rise of the Iowa caucuses, virtually unknown until 1976
You’ll definitely learn a lot about the Reagan campaign as a harbinger of the 1980s. It also covers the rise of the Iowa caucuses, virtually unknown until 1976
December 22, 2007
Superbrevelation of what goes on behind and in front of the scenes in the quadrennial race for the US Presidency. Unfortunately the strategies and incredibe costs are being adoptd in far too many other countries around the world including Indonesia
June 12, 2013
Very long and detailed book, but I flew through it. Witcover is great at writing and comes down the middle with his politics, which you didn't see in "Game Change."
January 8, 2015
One of the best political books I've ever read. Such great details!!
September 7, 2025
Here's to Jules Witcover (RIP) who passed away this year, 2025. When Theodore "Teddy" White announced there would be no THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1976, since he was taking time off from journalism to write his autobiography, Witcover picked up the ball, and battle. The 1976 presidential election was one of the most contentious and certainly zaniest in American history. Gerald Ford, unelected occupant of the White House, had to fight off a Republican primary challenge from Ronald Reagan, age 65 and given up for politically dead. How close Reagan came to winning the nomination in Kansas City is an exciting story Witcover handles with care. Literally at the last minute Reagan was hustling for votes on the convention floor. At the house of the Democrats, over a dozen obscure candidates, remember Fred Harris and Mo Udall?, had to win primaries under new rules forged by McGovern in 1972 guaranteeing proportional representation to women and minorities. Still, everyone understood the Democrats had to take back the South to win in November and the great virtue of Jimmy Carter is that he permanently knocked out George Wallace from American presidential politics. Carter also left another, more troublesome, legacy to American presidential politics. The pursuit of the presidency is a four-year task, and begins the day after the last election. This was a long-distance race for the presidency for both parties, and Witcover caught its breathless speed in his prose.
May 19, 2023
A great book for political science afficionados, even though there are at times too many trivial non-events cropping up. Unfortunately, what was true in 1972-76 (too many complex and differently construced primaries, the ever-lasting political campaining which only serves the rich and powerful lobbies, and more importantly, the mere existence of an archaic electoral college structure which is more important than the people’s choice).
May 16, 2024
Jules Witcover's excellent chronicling of the 1976 presidential election is a wonder.
I understand Jimmy Carter more and admire his lengthy campaign. But I still come away liking Gerald Ford, as well.
There is a lengthy cast of candidates and lots of inside baseball stories about the journalists who cover them. If you are a political junkie or a former hack this should be a must read. It's in the top group of campaign chronicles.
I understand Jimmy Carter more and admire his lengthy campaign. But I still come away liking Gerald Ford, as well.
There is a lengthy cast of candidates and lots of inside baseball stories about the journalists who cover them. If you are a political junkie or a former hack this should be a must read. It's in the top group of campaign chronicles.
June 25, 2022
The greatest Audiobook on CD about USA presidents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 12, 2021
4.5 if it was an option. Witcover is such a savvy observer of American politics but doesn't offer his unique color enough in this book. The scope of the undertaking is impressive, however.
December 8, 2025
very good. learned about a lot of new things
November 6, 2017
One of the first books that I ever read that got me interested in modern American politics. A bit more plodding then I remember, but still a solid read. It's interesting how many of the issues that Witcover identifies in the 70s remain current.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews