Could RFK if not assasinated and then nominated have beaten Nixon?

[Jericho15]

Just wondering since 1968 was a strange year. If he could have consolidated the Anti-War Democrats and then use the mystique of Camelot and the Kennedy name as well as run on his brother and against what LBJ and Humphrey stood for he could have attracted more people over Nixon portraying Nixon's message of being a block of unity as self-centered and hubristic. Just wondering.

[Apollo 20]

I know there are other threads on this, but it isn't even assured that he would have won the Democratic nomination. 1968 was the last election cycle in which the old delegate selection rules applied; unlike the open and representative process of today, large blocs of delegates were controlled by party bosses. Many of them were loyal to LBJ/HHH and/or unsold on RFK as a nominee. The identity of the nominee would have been decided by people like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and AFL-CIO boss George Meany, both of whom were supportive of the war in Vietnam and opposed to and threatened by the anti-war New Left from whom RFK and McCarthy drew support.

[Plumber]

I don't think so. There's another thread on this where the electoral math just doesn't add up. He's going to lose Texas, and needs to win California, Nixon's home state. Not happening.

[Jericho15]

Kennedy's have an appeal to Unions naturally not to mention although he allied with the anti-war democrats in practice RFK really didn't oppose the war at all if you watch on youtube a 1968 townhall where he and Reagan are present being asked questions by students and a british student is trying to grill them both on American involvement in the war, RFK really doesn't denounce he more or less calls for a revisioning of strategy.

I mean how can he when he worked in two administrations that both intensified the conflict.

[tiggerfan]

I have never felt he could have even won the nomination that year.

If you look at the math after California HHH still had more delegates that RFK and McCarthy combined and he was close to the majority he needed. Most of the remaining delegates would be chosen in southern states controlled by machines.

They would be unlikely to support RFK (they might not like the Hump but they'd back him over a Kennedy)

Unless the Kennedy and McCarthy forces unite (which is unlikely) then I don't see any way of them stopping Humphrey.

Assuming he somehow gets the nomination I suspect LBJ cuts his throat in the general.

Johnson was a Democrat to be sure but he hated RFK with a passion that makes the Tea Party look like Obama's best friend. He also was obsessed with the fear he'd be in effect "bookended" between the Kennedy's and seen as a fluke by history.

He actually was on pretty good personal terms with Nixon, they'd known each other for going on 20 yrs by 1968 and they generally agreed on foreign policy issues.

So I think if RFK got the nomination LBJ would quietly work behind the scenes to sabotage him, sort of in the way many think the Clintons sort of sabotaged Kerry to leave things open for Hillary in 2008. He wouldn't open hurt HHH but he wouldn't help in places like Texas either.

[Jericho15]

The LBJ thing maybe true but remember RFK died just after California and the race was far from over.

You also talk about the Kennedy family as though in this period they are held in disdain. Far from it, JFK was held as a fallen hero that was long missed and the family still hadn't lost the mystique of Camelot, that not happening until the mid-70s with Chappaquidick and Ted Kennedy.

Likely RFK could have united the anti-war democrats having realistically more of them than there were pro-wars and dixiecrats and then do what Nixon did by appealing to the straight man opposers of the War. Not the hippies but rather the average man who didn't like the conflict.

[037771]

I don't think so. There's another thread on this where the electoral math just doesn't add up. He's going to lose Texas, and needs to win California, Nixon's home state. Not happening.

I have never felt he could have even won the nomination that year.

Assuming he somehow gets the nomination I suspect LBJ cuts his throat in the general.

Johnson was a Democrat to be sure but he hated RFK with a passion that makes the Tea Party look like Obama's best friend. He also was obsessed with the fear he'd be in effect "bookended" between the Kennedy's and seen as a fluke by history.

He actually was on pretty good personal terms with Nixon, they'd known each other for going on 20 yrs by 1968 and they generally agreed on foreign policy issues.

So I think if RFK got the nomination LBJ would quietly work behind the scenes to sabotage him, sort of in the way many think the Clintons sort of sabotaged Kerry to leave things open for Hillary in 2008. He wouldn't open hurt HHH but he wouldn't help in places like Texas either.

I tend to agree with the above observations. LBJ loathed RFK, and (according to Robert Dallek, at any rate) much preferred to have Nelson Rockefeller as his successor than Kennedy's little brother; the next big thing was Richard Nixon, and if by some miracle Bobby attains the nomination, I think the temptation to leak damaging information about the Senator would prove irresistible. And there was plenty of dirt Johnson could access from Bobby's days as Attorney-General...

[Jericho15]

Bobby as a person was remarkably clean in comparison to his brothers and father.

As for his time as Attorney General, LBJ couldn't touch him in that regard without risking himself having worked in both administrations he was AG as.

[037771]

Bobby as a person was remarkably clean in comparison to his brothers and father.

As for his time as Attorney General, LBJ couldn't touch him in that regard without risking himself having worked in both administrations he was AG as.

Yes he can. A) He has plausible deniability with regards to the shenanigans going on in the Justice Department, both as Vice-President and as President, and B) he likely won't be named as the source of the leak. Leaking unsavoury details about political opponents was a typical Johnson tactic, and one he was very good at.

[Rich Rostrom]

The LBJ thing maybe true but remember RFK died just after California and the race was far from over.

Wrong. It was very close to over. Humphrey had over half of the committed delegates that had been selected, and was not far short of a majority.

Another large block of delegates would be chosen by state conventions in the South. Humphrey was not liked there, but neither was RFK. It's very unlikely that this bloc would break strongly for RFK, and all Humphrey needed was a split there to get over the top.

Nor are Gene McCarthy's supporters going to jump for RFK, whom they viewed as a shameless opportunist. If McCarthy drops out, they will split at best.

[tiggerfan]

The LBJ thing maybe true but remember RFK died just after California and the race was far from over.

You also talk about the Kennedy family as though in this period they are held in disdain. Far from it, JFK was held as a fallen hero that was long missed and the family still hadn't lost the mystique of Camelot, that not happening until the mid-70s with Chappaquidick and Ted Kennedy.

Likely RFK could have united the anti-war democrats having realistically more of them than there were pro-wars and dixiecrats and then do what Nixon did by appealing to the straight man opposers of the War. Not the hippies but rather the average man who didn't like the conflict.

It may be true that in some parts of the country there was still a Kennedy mystique but not in much of the South.