Suppose that HHH wins in 1968 for some reason or another. What does Nixon do afterwards?
If Nixon loses in 1968, what happens to Nixon?
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
Get a dartboard with HHH's face.
He'd be done with politics by that point. Something of an elder statesmen for the party after that but nothing probably all that serious. Maybe write some books on what future U.S. foreign policy should be.
Well, that's sort of a given. Certainly he's not going to get tapped for the Presidency again, no matter how hard he campaigns, but I wondered whether he would try for another position (he could probably wrangle a Representative's seat, at least), stick around as Gaius' "elder statesman," or leave politics altogether for some other subject like law (despite his comment on what would happen if he practiced law alone).
He could be a successful international lawyer and political commentator, and with his reputation intact, would be a potentially attractive Secretary of State in a future Republican administration.
It depends on how he loses. If it's because the recordings of him sabotaging the Paris peace talks got leaked to the press than I figure he'd get to spend a whole lot of time in what's called administrative segregation.
Moves to Angola where he helps revolt against Belgium and is elected the first president of Angola (1975-1987).
Angola allies with his old country and is awarded the Presidental Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter in 1983 (HHH loses 72 to Regan,Regan wins 76,Carter wins 80.)
Nixon is also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for his work for helping Angola gain its independence.
Angola allies with his old country and is awarded the Presidental Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter in 1983 (HHH loses 72 to Regan,Regan wins 76,Carter wins 80.)
Nixon is also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for his work for helping Angola gain its independence.
Realpolitik
Banned
President Reagan 1977-1985 with Nixon as Secretary of State
That would certainly be... something else. Nixon saw it as his "job" to "guide" Reagan in not blowing up the world, interestingly enough, OTL.
ASB. Lyndon and Edna would never do it.
As an alternative, Chicago could go smoother.
That, or have LBJ and other leading Democrats not actively sabotaging (or at the very least neglecting) their own party's candidate. If HHH actually had the money to properly campaign and had local support, then he could have done better.
Regardless, "how does this happen" wasn't what I was interested in.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
President Reagan 1977-1985 with Nixon as Secretary of State
Reagan loses badly in 1972, so he is not the candidate in 1976. It would be very hard to get reelected in 1980.
Why would Reagan lose in 1972? After three terms of Democrats, and Johnson (and presumably Humphrey) being unpopular, Reagan, or whoever is the Republican candidate in 1972, is pretty likely to win.
Realpolitik
Banned
I'd strongly debate that. Part of the reason HHH was able to tear away from Wallace was that the labor machines and bosses realized how much appeal Wallace had and went into DEFCON mode for him.
Realpolitik
Banned
I always thought Nixon would make a good academic, oddly enough-he definitely was smart enough to chair international relations at our top universities. But he wouldn't be reconciled to just that. Maybe a Kissinger esque future.
I'm going off of what I read in Nixonland the other day about his campaign; I wouldn't dispute that at the low level there was hard work, but at the upper level support for HHH seemed to be lacking. Funds for advertising and similar activities in particular were called out.
Again, though, I don't really care how Nixon loses, just that he loses. Assume it's not something that will send him to jail or anything, just the numbers coming in differently Election Night.
Realpolitik
Banned
I'd say that the rank and file Democrats were the problem, not the Daleys and Meanys.
As I mentioned, Chicago not forcing him into an utter law and order stance is great. As is LBJ being less stubborn and letting him be more flexible would help.
The trouble, as I recall, was mentioned as being LBJ in particular, and some of the other bosses (I think John Connally was mentioned specifically, too) as sometimes acting more as if they were for Nixon than for HHH, or at least not allowing him to run an effective campaign (sort of the inverse of Gore's problem, where Humphrey was being lashed to a sinking ship). I also specifically recall money problems being mentioned, compared to the Nixon campaign, so that Humphrey had to run fewer ads and ended up having trouble with some of their campaign activities (I can't recall whether they were ads or visits) having to be cancelled.
Chicago ought to have been avoidable, but honestly given the personalities of the people involved on both sides--both the rank-and-file and the bosses, such as they were on the protestor side--I think it's extremely difficult to prevent it from happening.
I mention, for the third time, though, that I don't actually particular care why Humphrey wins. You could postulate Timothy Leary getting assistance from the Ascended Masters in dosing everyone in Ohio, Illinois, and California with acid or something, for all I care
Realpolitik
Banned
That's more 1972, especially with Connally heading Democrats for Nixon and LBJ's support being entirely pro forma. You'd be correct there.
LBJ was unenthusiastic about Humphrey, but he was a dedicated Democrat who delivered Texas (it's not a coincidence that Texas was blue, unlike the rest of the South, in 64 and in 68, but not in 72) and did what he could, particularly in the last week. LBJ also knew that the Great Society would be safest with Humphrey, regardless of whether he slightly felt that Nixon was closer to him on the war. LBJ was a complex man, and utterly dedicated to whatever he did. But party loyalty was like mother love to him.
Chicago was a disaster waiting to happen, given the kiddies desire to get attention (and their belief that America would side with them) and the MLK riots and the CPD and Daley. Ready to explode. Agreed there.
I think something tough is that Nixon defeated Humphrey far more decisively in the electoral vote than in the popular one. People forget that. The quickest route would be California, but that's Nixon's home state and Reagan was governor. The Republicans were very well organized and tough to beat there until the post 1988 era. Illinois and Ohio are where you should focus.
OK.I mention, for the third time, though, that I don't actually particular care why Humphrey wins. You could postulate Timothy Leary getting assistance from the Ascended Masters in dosing everyone in Ohio, Illinois, and California with acid or something, for all I care
Last edited:
