Hubert Humphery wins in '68

dw93

Here's my take on the Presidency on the United States after a Humphrey win in 1968:

37. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 1969-1973
38. Ronald Reagan (R-CA): 1973-1981
39. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA): 1981-1983*
40. Gary Hart (D-CO): 1983-1985
41. Bob Dole (R-KS): 1985-1993
42. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN): 1993-2001
43. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): 2001-2005
44. John McCain (R-AZ): 2005-2009
45. Howard Dean (D-VT): 2009-present

*=Dies in Office.
 

dw93

eliphas8 said:
Why would Humphrey lose after a single term?
Click to expand...

Voter fatigue, the Vietnam War still raging on and the Democratic party still being very divided. Plus, the economy did start to decline in Nixon's first term OTL, that could do Humphrey in as well. Plus, while I'm no fan of his, Reagan was one of those guys who could p*ss on a person's shoe and convince them it was rain, so that to could do Humphrey in. Humphrey also isn't going to be able to open up China or make the SALT treaty happen.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
eliphas8 said:
Why would Humphrey lose after a single term?
Click to expand...

What could he have done much differently than Nixon and succeeded in doing so?

I doubt that opening up to China would be happening with him. OTL, for that to happen, you had to have two powerful guys go against the State Department establishment in a quest so cynical and unheard of at the time that it involved Henry Kissinger basically stowing away to China. Humphrey was firmly in the Cyrus Vance Establishment diplomatic camp, and wanted better relations with the Soviets based on post WW2 idealism rather than cynical understandings of American power and its limitations. There'd be no Chilean coup, which might have negative Cold War consequences in South America, as well.

He also would not have been able to stop the Vietnam War other than possibly by packing up and quitting, which would not at all be good for him politically. He might have just done that and allowed South Vietnam to go through the tribunals and re-education camps 5 years earlier than OTL.

He was not corrupt, kind of a rarity, nor was he dirty. That would allow him to escape Nixon's issues OTL. But he would not have been a better President.

The moderate and successful legislation that Nixon and Capitol Hill worked on during his tenure would likely still come about, and that'd help, but Humphrey was out of his depth on other things.

And keep in mind that the 1972 electorate was one of the more Conservative ones in the century when you look at the demographics of who was voting. Not really sure why this was, maybe it was that the radicalism of the era dissuaded leftists in the US from going to the polls. I think a Humphrey Presidency would be a one term one, especially when he fails to deliver the promised goods, as he clearly would have.

Maybe I am being too harsh on the guy. He might have, like Obama, gotten to the Oval Office and understood some practical realities that were not as apparent on the campaign trail,and governed more as a centrist, and like Nixon, with a more robust and intuitive foreign policy. But I'd have to say that its not likely.
 

zookeeper

Banned
Could Reagan win in a landslide in 1980? How badly does Humphrey lose to Reagan? What if Humphrey gets universal health care passed in 72 before he loses he be a good single term president.
 

SlideAway

TinyTartar said:
What could he have done much differently than Nixon and succeeded in doing so?

I doubt that opening up to China would be happening with him. OTL, for that to happen, you had to have two powerful guys go against the State Department establishment in a quest so cynical and unheard of at the time that it involved Henry Kissinger basically stowing away to China. Humphrey was firmly in the Cyrus Vance Establishment diplomatic camp, and wanted better relations with the Soviets based on post WW2 idealism rather than cynical understandings of American power and its limitations. There'd be no Chilean coup, which might have negative Cold War consequences in South America, as well.

He also would not have been able to stop the Vietnam War other than possibly by packing up and quitting, which would not at all be good for him politically. He might have just done that and allowed South Vietnam to go through the tribunals and re-education camps 5 years earlier than OTL.

He was not corrupt, kind of a rarity, nor was he dirty. That would allow him to escape Nixon's issues OTL. But he would not have been a better President.

The moderate and successful legislation that Nixon and Capitol Hill worked on during his tenure would likely still come about, and that'd help, but Humphrey was out of his depth on other things.

And keep in mind that the 1972 electorate was one of the more Conservative ones in the century when you look at the demographics of who was voting. Not really sure why this was, maybe it was that the radicalism of the era dissuaded leftists in the US from going to the polls. I think a Humphrey Presidency would be a one term one, especially when he fails to deliver the promised goods, as he clearly would have.

Maybe I am being too harsh on the guy. He might have, like Obama, gotten to the Oval Office and understood some practical realities that were not as apparent on the campaign trail,and governed more as a centrist, and like Nixon, with a more robust and intuitive foreign policy. But I'd have to say that its not likely.
Click to expand...

Actually RogueBeaver has posted here that Humphrey, RFK, and Nixon all advocated recognizing the PRC in 1968, so it might have happened.

ON EDIT: This paper has more - suggests that, yes, Humphrey would have suffered greater political costs. Doesn't have a lot of detail, but says that both Nixon and Humphrey on the campaign trail advocated "more engagement" with the PRC, but short of the full opening Nixon made.
 
Last edited:

dw93

zookeeper said:
Could Reagan win in a landslide in 1980? How badly does Humphrey lose to Reagan? What if Humphrey gets universal health care passed in 72 before he loses he be a good single term president.
Click to expand...

Probably not a landslide, but not close either. I don't think Humphrey would be a bad President, just a very, very mediocre one term President.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
I admired Humphrey, but if elected as POTUS, he probably becomes the functional "bookend" for the New Deal era Democrats. He was a basically a good man in a tough business, so he might have stretched two terms.

One of the incalculable things with his election & possible re-election is avoiding all of the internally damaging consequences * of watergate * to the country. Much of the current pervading cynicism about politicians and government got amplified by that event and it's fallout.

edit - I missed adding watergate to my second paragraph.....
 
Last edited:
Heavy

Heavy

Banned
Is there still a Watergate? One interpretation I've seen suggests that Watergate catalysed popular distrust and scepticism with regards to the government, which Reagan was able to harness in 1980 and turn into distrust and scepticism with regards to the state.

However, I am not especialyl knowledgeable about the time period, so I do not know whether that is an accurate appraisal of the situation or not.
 
creighton

creighton

With no Watergate, and presumably no Gary Hart scandal, I find it hard to believe that Clinton does not still become President somewhere down the line. He would still have his political skill, in addition to a more trusting press and public.
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
I think Humphrey's Supreme Court appointees would be interesting. I think he appoints Arthur Goldberg to replace Earl Warren in 1969. I have to quote AH.com here. Someone once said his law professor was a Douglas clerk during the Nixon and that the prof said that Douglas really wanted to retire and practice environmental law, but did not want to allow Nixon to appoint someone. So ITTL Douglas retires in 1970. In 1971, he appoints Griffin Bell or Frank Johnson to replace Hugo Black and Shirley Hoffesteder to replace John Harlan. So we get a continued liberal court and an earlier coed court.
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
37. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 1969-1973
I think Humphrey would be reelected. I see him getting us out of Vietnam. I also think detente with the Soviets and Chinese would be popular.
38. Ronald Reagan (R-CA): 1973-1981
I don't see Reagan winning, unless he is running against an incumbent during a recession and or hostage crisis.
39. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA): 1981-1983*
40. Gary Hart (D-CO): 1983-1985
I am assuming there is a sex scandal. The economy was good in 1984.
41. Bob Dole (R-KS): 1985-1993
42. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN): 1993-2001
43. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): 2001-2005
The economy was good in 2004 and if 9/11 happens, Gephardt can use terrorism as an issue. There wouldn't have been an Iraq war.
44. John McCain (R-AZ): 2005-2009
45. Howard Dean (D-VT): 2009-present

*=Dies in Office
 

fred1451

Banned
creighton said:
With no Watergate, and presumably no Gary Hart scandal, I find it hard to believe that Clinton does not still become President somewhere down the line. He would still have his political skill, in addition to a more trusting press and public.
Click to expand...
Clinton got in largely because none of the Democrat front runners wanted to go up against Bush Sr. with a 91% approval rating, I personally believe he went into it expecting to lose an for it to be a resume enhancer, imagine his surprise when he won.
 

CCK

fred1451 said:
Clinton got in largely because none of the Democrat front runners wanted to go up against Bush Sr. with a 91% approval rating, I personally believe he went into it expecting to lose an for it to be a resume enhancer, imagine his surprise when he won.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton (and I like him) is too ambitious and too much of a narcissist to think he wouldn't win. He likely went into every race he ever ran for thinking he'd work harder than his opponent. Bush Sr. was never known for his politicking skills. Clinton is a master retail politician, he likely thought in 1991 that he could at the very least shake more hands and kiss more babies at county fairs than Bush could.

Clinton may have thought in the back of his mind that if Mario Cuomo were to enter the race after he did, that he (Clinton) could come in second during the primaries and put himself in a good position to be Cuomo's running mate in 1992. Hoping Cuomo would want to balance the ticket by picking a centrist southerner.

But you have to have a pretty big ego to run for president. I can't see Clinton ever thinking he'd lose in 1992. If he thought he would have lost to Bush before he announced his run in 1991, Clinton likely then would have waited until 1996 to run.
 

fred1451

Banned
CCK said:
Bill Clinton (and I like him) is too ambitious and too much of a narcissist to think he wouldn't win. He likely went into every race he ever ran for thinking he'd work harder than his opponent. Bush Sr. was never known for his politicking skills. Clinton is a master retail politician, he likely thought in 1991 that he could at the very least shake more hands and kiss more babies at county fairs than Bush could.

Clinton may have thought in the back of his mind that if Mario Cuomo were to enter the race after he did, that he (Clinton) could come in second during the primaries and put himself in a good position to be Cuomo's running mate in 1992. Hoping Cuomo would want to balance the ticket by picking a centrist southerner.

But you have to have a pretty big ego to run for president. I can't see Clinton ever thinking he'd lose in 1992. If he thought he would have lost to Bush before he announced his run in 1991, Clinton likely then would have waited until 1996 to run.
Click to expand...
`I can agree with you up to a point, No sane person will put themselves through a presidential campaign if they didn't think they could win it. His campaign was well thought out and executed, to often in a second term election you see the challenger run a campaign that can best be described as "The guy in office is doing a lousy job, elect me, I can do better." Without real supplying details about how they are going to do it. (Unless you are Bob Dole of course, in which case it's, "Bob Dole says Bob Dole isn't Bill Clinton." The Clinton Campaign laid out what was wrong with America and what they were going to do to fix it. I still believe he got into it as a resume enhancer, but he quickly realized he had a real shot at winning it, and did what he had too to win. Much as Regan did before him, and Obama did after.
 

CCK

The Humphrey re-election campaign would paint Reagan as a far-right Goldwaterite who would be too quick to go to nuclear war with the Soviets. The Democrats would also portray Reagan as so much of a deficit hawk that he would eliminate programs like Medicare and social security. Reagan would likely have a primary fight on his hands with somebody like a George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller. I could see some liberal and moderate Republicans in the mostly northeast forming "Republicans for Humphrey" organizations.

President Humphrey as an incumbent would have the advantage of the bully pulpit and would be able to paint an image in public's minds of a trigger happy Reagan who would send the U.S. to all out war with the USSR, who would esculate the war in Vietnam rather than de-esculate, and would destroy the New Deal and Great Society programs.

Then you have George Wallace. Even if he's still shot and paralyzed in 1972, he'll still run as an "American Independent" in the general election. With no Nixon in the White House, it's harder for the Republican Party in 1969-1972 to use the "southern strategy" to build a strong southern coalition by the 1972 election. I can hear Wallace now going across the south attacking Ronald Reagan as the "Hollywood governor who was born in the land of Lincoln." It would be harder for Reagan to look like a "state rights" candidate in 1972 with Wallace in the race. Wallace would likely take many of the anti-civil rights southern (and some northern anti-busing) voters that Reagan would need to win.


The 1972 Presidential Election
Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie - 274 electoral votes
Ronald Reagan/Howard Baker - 189 electoral votes
George Wallace/Lester Maddox - 75 electoral votes

genusmap.php




Hubert Humphrey (D) (1969-1977)
Howard Baker (R) (1977-1985)
Gary Hart (D) (1985-1993)
Pete Wilson (R) (1993-1997)
Bill Clinton (D) (1997-2005)
George Allen (R) (2005-2009)
Deval Patrick (D) (2009-present)
 

dw93

Paul V McNutt said:
37. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 1969-1973
I think Humphrey would be reelected. I see him getting us out of Vietnam. I also think detente with the Soviets and Chinese would be popular.
38. Ronald Reagan (R-CA): 1973-1981
I don't see Reagan winning, unless he is running against an incumbent during a recession and or hostage crisis.
39. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA): 1981-1983*
40. Gary Hart (D-CO): 1983-1985
I am assuming there is a sex scandal. The economy was good in 1984.
41. Bob Dole (R-KS): 1985-1993
42. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN): 1993-2001
43. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): 2001-2005
The economy was good in 2004 and if 9/11 happens, Gephardt can use terrorism as an issue. There wouldn't have been an Iraq war.
44. John McCain (R-AZ): 2005-2009
45. Howard Dean (D-VT): 2009-present

*=Dies in Office
Click to expand...

37. Hubert Humphrey: He could win, but I don't think he does. I think his approach to Vietnam would be any different from Nixon's OTL. Keep in mind Nixon didn't pull out til after the '72 election. The economy did start to decline in Nixon's first term, so that'll do Humphrey in as well. As for China the old saying "only Nixon could go to China" was true, Humphrey would've been crucified for it.

38. Ronald Reagan: He could win. He was re elected governor of California in 1970 OTL, with 1970 TTL most likely being a Republican year, he still gets re elected. Reagan gets the nomination as moderate Nixon's second defeat is more recent than Goldwater's in '64. In the general Reagan wins a close one. He has a mixed first term and gets re elected because the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Ted Kennedy, who can't shed off Chappaquiddick and has other skeletons come out. Reagan has a miserable second term, and the Democrats win big in '78 and '80.

40. Gary Hart: Exactly. It's an October surprise, however due to the good economy, the Dole/Alexander ticket wins a close race.

43. Dick Gephardt: Vice President Gephardt beats Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in a LANDSLIDE due to a very strong economy (or so we thought), stability abroad, and multiple scandals (Ethics violations, extra marital affairs) of Gingrich's. Even though the Democrats picked up enough seats to retake the senate, Republicans keep control of the house. The economy enters recession in the Spring of 2001 and very little, other than a tax cut and education reform, get done in President Gephardt's first two years and as a result, the GOP makes gains in the house and retake the senate in the 2002 midterms. 2003 and 2004 are gridlocked and due to a jobless economic recovery and voter fatigue (yet another thing that hurt President Humphrey in '72), President Gephardt loses to Senator John McCain in the 2004 election. As for 9/11, butterflies prevent it.
 

dw93

CCK said:
The Humphrey re-election campaign would paint Reagan as a far-right Goldwaterite who would be too quick to go to nuclear war with the Soviets. The Democrats would also portray Reagan as so much of a deficit hawk that he would eliminate programs like Medicare and social security. Reagan would likely have a primary fight on his hands with somebody like a George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller. I could see some liberal and moderate Republicans in the mostly northeast forming "Republicans for Humphrey" organizations.

President Humphrey as an incumbent would have the advantage of the bully pulpit and would be able to paint an image in public's minds of a trigger happy Reagan who would send the U.S. to all out war with the USSR, who would esculate the war in Vietnam rather than de-esculate, and would destroy the New Deal and Great Society programs.

Then you have George Wallace. Even if he's still shot and paralyzed in 1972, he'll still run as an "American Independent" in the general election. With no Nixon in the White House, it's harder for the Republican Party in 1969-1972 to use the "southern strategy" to build a strong southern coalition by the 1972 election. I can hear Wallace now going across the south attacking Ronald Reagan as the "Hollywood governor who was born in the land of Lincoln." It would be harder for Reagan to look like a "state rights" candidate in 1972 with Wallace in the race. Wallace would likely take many of the anti-civil rights southern (and some northern anti-busing) voters that Reagan would need to win.


The 1972 Presidential Election
Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie - 274 electoral votes
Ronald Reagan/Howard Baker - 189 electoral votes
George Wallace/Lester Maddox - 75 electoral votes

genusmap.php




Hubert Humphrey (D) (1969-1977)
Howard Baker (R) (1977-1985)
Gary Hart (D) (1985-1993)
Pete Wilson (R) (1993-1997)
Bill Clinton (D) (1997-2005)
George Allen (R) (2005-2009)
Deval Patrick (D) (2009-present)
Click to expand...

How does Humphrey unify the Democratic party after '68? The party only grew more and more divided after '68 OTL, the POD for a Humphrey win is that Nixon's secret dealings during the Peace talks in '68 become public and Humphrey wins a close one. On top of that, even before Nixon crafted the Southern strategy you had Dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party and joining the GOP, and I doubt Wallace is gonna run unless Rocky or Romney get the GOP nomination, which I think moderate Nixon's second defeat in '68 will be fresher than Goldwater's in '64, which that along with a fired up conservative movement after Nixon's loss, helps Reagan and so long as Reagan balances the ticket (which he did in '80 OTL and was planning on it if he beat Ford in '76 OTL) there won't be any moderates Republicans running to Humphrey.
 

CCK

dw93 said:
How does Humphrey unify the Democratic party after '68? The party only grew more and more divided after '68 OTL, the POD for a Humphrey win is that Nixon's secret dealings during the Peace talks in '68 become public and Humphrey wins a close one. On top of that, even before Nixon crafted the Southern strategy you had Dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party and joining the GOP, and I doubt Wallace is gonna run unless Rocky or Romney get the GOP nomination, which I think moderate Nixon's second defeat in '68 will be fresher than Goldwater's in '64, which that along with a fired up conservative movement after Nixon's loss, helps Reagan and so long as Reagan balances the ticket (which he did in '80 OTL and was planning on it if he beat Ford in '76 OTL) there won't be any moderates Republicans running to Humphrey.
Click to expand...

The problem in OTL is the party had no leadership from 1969-1972. With a Democratic president in the office during that time period it gives the party focus and leadership at the very least. The Democrats were never unified (see the Will Rogers quote about it being an unorganized party). Plus even with the party extremely fractured in the 68 OTL, Humphrey still almost won the election. So it isn't unbelievable that with a Democrat in the White House in 1972 that that Democratic president could hold the New Deal coalition together for at least one more election. Plus Humphrey was a better campaigner and organizer than McGovern was.

Yeah, if a pro-civil rights Democrat like Humphrey is president in 1972, George Wallace is running in the primary against him and then as an Independent in the general. With the anti-union Reagan as the Republican nominee and the very pro-union Humphrey as the Democratic nominee, the labor unions in the northeast and Midwest are going to be out in full force in support of Humphrey. Reagan was seen as more anti-union than Nixon was and Humphrey was seen as more pro-union than McGovern. So more of the union vote is going to stay with the Democrats in this 72 TL than in did in the original 72 Nixon/McGovern 72 TL. So with more of the union vote going to Humphrey and Wallace playing as a spoiler to Reagan in the south, Reagan's path to victory in 1972 is almost impossible.

There is no Iran hostage crisis and no bad economy to help him across the finish line here in TTL like there was against Carter in 1980. The Goldwater-style conservative coalition we saw rise in the 1980s with Reagan was not ready (or built) for electoral success in 1972.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top