Would Humphrey have been re-elected 1972

[Derek Jackson]

WI Agnew's criminality came out 2 weeks before the 1968 election.

I think that gives a 1-2% swing at least and likely elects Humphrey.

What happens in 1972.

A lot depends on Vietnam. What could or should Humphrey have done there?

[Plumber]

Yes, because he's facing off against an unpolished Reagan. I cannot overstate that even when Carter's popularity was shit, he was leading Reagan until the debates because Reagan was an extremist. Humphrey is not Carter. He'll win.

Plusses: Humphrey will do the same in Vietnam except he won't delay it. I expect the war to be over by 1972. China will be like OTL too. These two will be a big boost, especially since Reagan will oppose both moves.

Minuses: The economy will be better off without Nixon's policies, though some of them were pumping up the economy short-term, causing it long-term. These probably balance out to a similar climate than OTL. This is NOT good for the incumbent; CREEP went after everyone but McGovern because Muskie, Humphrey, and Wallace could've beaten Nixon. But Reagan is also an extremist, and will come off much more as Goldwater, with his foreign policy and unpolished domestic views.

[Peelitebkearns]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Yes, because he's facing off against an unpolished Reagan. I cannot overstate that even when Carter's popularity was shit, he was leading Reagan until the debates because Reagan was an extremist. Humphrey is not Carter. He'll win.

Plusses: Humphrey will do the same in Vietnam except he won't delay it. I expect the war to be over by 1972. China will be like OTL too. These two will be a big boost, especially since Reagan will oppose both moves.

Minuses: The economy will be better off without Nixon's policies, though some of them were pumping up the economy short-term, causing it long-term. These probably balance out to a similar climate than OTL. This is NOT good for the incumbent; CREEP went after everyone but McGovern because Muskie, Humphrey, and Wallace could've beaten Nixon. But Reagan is also an extremist, and will come off much more as Goldwater, with his foreign policy and unpolished domestic views.

But would Reagan be the nominee in 1972? He's got competition from Rocky and Romney for the nomination. Also, if Humphrey is popular enough, Reagan could sit out 1972 in favour of winning in 1976 after 16 years of Democratic control of the WH.

That said, I agree with you that if Reagan is the nominee in 1972, HHH will win a second term fairly easily (and I think he'd probably beat whoever the GOP put up against him in 1972).

[Paul V McNutt]

If there is the same expansion of the primaries as there was OTL, then Reagan is the Republican nominee and he is a weak candidate. Humphrey has gotten us out of Vietnam and there is the same opening to China and detente with the Soviets as there was OTL.

[Paul V McNutt]

Sorry I forgot to subscribe.

[Peelitebkearns]

If Reagan loses the 1972 election by a bigger margin than Nixon did in 1968, we can assume the conservative movement will be fatally damaged for a generation at least. The Republicans would have lost 4 elections on the bounce and although the moderate Nixon came close to victory in both of his attempts, the heavier defeats in 1964 and 1972 were due to the party nominating conservatives out of step with the public mood. Since he's lost in 1972 Reagan will be electerally tarnished and thus it will be dificult for him to challenge that assessment.

[Emperor Norton I]

I think the big sticking point in favor of Reagan winning or Humphrey losing to someone else would have been party fatigue. However, I don't know how true party fatigue is as a concept, or at least how much it really stands up to simply just wanting someone different regardless of party. This is why RFK could well have won in 1968 and why Humphrey almost won in 1968, even after LBJ. This is why in New York, Cuomo won even after two Democrats, one who resigned and the other with tanking popularity. If HHH is popular, I don't expect him to lose. And there may be an element of just sighing relief after all the hectic things that went on before he was elected being over that will lead people to vote for him again.

[SLCer]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

I think the big sticking point in favor of Reagan winning or Humphrey losing to someone else would have been party fatigue. However, I don't know how true party fatigue is as a concept, or at least how much it really stands up to simply just wanting someone different regardless of party. This is why RFK could well have won in 1968 and why Humphrey almost won in 1968, even after LBJ. This is why in New York, Cuomo won even after two Democrats, one who resigned and the other with tanking popularity. If HHH is popular, I don't expect him to lose. And there may be an element of just sighing relief after all the hectic things that went on before he was elected being over that will lead people to vote for him again.

I think there is something to party fatigue, but it's also tied to the direction of the country. I'd wager it's more associated with a non-sitting candidate running for president than an incumbent.

Take '92 as an example. H.W. Bush was well on his way to reelection in '91 and then bottomed out the closer we got to the '92 election. Some of that was party fatigue, the fact Republicans had been in control for twelve-years, but it was also the recession. Somehow butterfly that recession away and, even with Republicans holding the White House for so long, I suspect H.W. Bush is able to hang on and beat Clinton (or whomever the Democrat is).

So, I'd say sitting presidents probably have a built-in advantage to overcoming party fatigue (this could also explain how Truman managed to win his election, even though the Democrats had been in power for sixteen-years).

If the economy is humming along and Humphrey has lived up to his pledge to end the war in Vietnam, I think it's very likely he wins reelection. They're not going to boot Humphrey if things have improved between '68-'72 just because his party has been in power since '60.

Now, in '76, it's likely the Democrats, without an incumbent president, have a hard time holding on to the White House due to that very reason. But in '72? I doubt it would've been a big hurdle.

As for Reagan, does he run in '72? Maybe he sees his opening in '76 instead and decides to sit that out expecting a Humphrey reelection?

[Peelitebkearns]

Originally Posted by SLCer

I think there is something to party fatigue, but it's also tied to the direction of the country. I'd wager it's more associated with a non-sitting candidate running for president than an incumbent.

Take '92 as an example. H.W. Bush was well on his way to reelection in '91 and then bottomed out the closer we got to the '92 election. Some of that was party fatigue, the fact Republicans had been in control for twelve-years, but it was also the recession. Somehow butterfly that recession away and, even with Republicans holding the White House for so long, I suspect H.W. Bush is able to hang on and beat Clinton (or whomever the Democrat is).

So, I'd say sitting presidents probably have a built-in advantage to overcoming party fatigue (this could also explain how Truman managed to win his election, even though the Democrats had been in power for sixteen-years).

If the economy is humming along and Humphrey has lived up to his pledge to end the war in Vietnam, I think it's very likely he wins reelection. They're not going to boot Humphrey if things have improved between '68-'72 just because his party has been in power since '60.

Now, in '76, it's likely the Democrats, without an incumbent president, have a hard time holding on to the White House due to that very reason. But in '72? I doubt it would've been a big hurdle.

As for Reagan, does he run in '72? Maybe he sees his opening in '76 instead and decides to sit that out expecting a Humphrey reelection?

Pretty much agree with you on the subject of Party fatigue-it's a disadvantage to a president's chances at reelection, but not a critical one unless other events combine to make them personally unpopular. I think in an RFK lives/becomes president in 69 TL I read on here, there was talk about RFK being personally popular, unlike his party. In that instance he was reelected in 11972 despite the party he was from-it was a personal election if you like.


Of course, like you say, this almost guaranties a republican victory in 1976 and Reagan may well sit out the 1972 election. I guess that depends on whether Humphrey's reelection is seen as likely when Reagan has to decide. I think he'd try and hold off of making any decisions about 1972 until the last possible minute for that reason.

A scenario where Reagan is the nominee in 72 is interesting though, it leaves the 76 GOP primaries wide open, where as Reagan in 1976 is almost asured of victory in the primaries and the general.

[Jericho15]

In 72? Reagan wasn't the nominee in 72. Nixon was running for re-election and won for his appeal to the Silent Majority and his rehash of his Southern Strategy despite his strong desegregation stance.

Humphrey however I don't think could have even have obtained the nomination because of the War which at this point was undergoing Nixon's vietnamization which althoug was actually bringing it to an end in terms of American involvement but was percieved as an unnecessary violent extension. So therefore no.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

In 72? Reagan wasn't the nominee in 72. Nixon was running for re-election and won for his appeal to the Silent Majority and his rehash of his Southern Strategy despite his strong desegregation stance.

Humphrey however I don't think could have even have obtained the nomination because of the War which at this point was undergoing Nixon's vietnamization which althoug was actually bringing it to an end in terms of American involvement but was percieved as an unnecessary violent extension. So therefore no.

Either you're not getting this, or my lack of sleep leads me to completely be confused by you.

[Jericho15]

The original thread had nothing to do with Reagan being the republican nominee people threw that in later. I was corresponding with the thread's intent.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

The original thread had nothing to do with Reagan being the republican nominee people threw that in later. I was corresponding with the thread's intent.

You realize the thread's point is that Humphrey is elected in 1968, so fast-forward to 1972, does he get reelected? Your mention of OTL events to dispel our ATL ponderings makes me question if you did.

Reagan is the likely nominee in 1972 if Nixon had lost, and that's why we have him in this scenario. We're building a consensus.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Reagan is the likely nominee in 1972 if Nixon had lost, and that's why we have him in this scenario. We're building a consensus.

No question Reagan is a serious contender in TTL '72, but I think a lot of folks are underrating Rockefeller, particularly given that we're four years closer to the Goldwater blowout.

A Reagan-Rockefeller primary in '72 would be fascinating.

[Jericho15]

I didn't know that considering the only information granted to me by the thread creator was "Could Humphrey have won in 72" having no mention or implication of 1968 or Nixon losing or whatever.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

I didn't know that considering the only information granted to me by the thread creator was "Could Humphrey have won in 72" having no mention or implication of 1968 or Nixon losing or whatever.

The first post covered everything. Agnew's crimes come out a few weeks before 1968. Those few points HHH lost by are therefore made up for, and he gets elected.

[terrellk]

I'm surprised that in a thread about a 1972 presidential election no one has brought up the elephant in the room: George Wallace. I believe that it would be very likely that we could see Wallace challenging Humphrey in the primaries whether they've been "opened" by that point or not. He was always one looking to have an impact and be heard, and what better way than a challenge to a sitting president? It's unlikely that Humphrey is going to work to appease the southern states on busing and other civil rights issues, and he probably won't include too many southerners in his cabinet. Also with having both the POTUS and VPOTUS from very northern states, I think Wallace would have an easy time making Humphrey's path to the nomination a hellish experience through the south. He would also be the anti-administration candidate if things weren't going exactly smoothly for HHH, so he might pick up some of the vote from that as well.

None of which is to say that he would defeat President Humphrey. I've no doubt of Humphrey's strength within the majority of the party. The interesting part would be what would happen after the convention, after the Wallace delegates made it messy. I could see, assuming old George doesn't make another third party effort, that those disaffected Southern Democrats that he's just dislocated from the party might bolt for Reagan, handing him the south. That's a lot of EVs in RR's column without much work on his part.

With Wallace, though, it's always hard to tell what he'd do except that he'd definitely throw a wrench in the system. But Humphrey would, I think we can agree, be beatable and Reagan, however unpolished, could carry the day in a close election if George Wallace slips HHH up on the tightrope he's walking with the south.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by terrellk

I'm surprised that in a thread about a 1972 presidential election no one has brought up the elephant in the room: George Wallace. I believe that it would be very likely that we could see Wallace challenging Humphrey in the primaries whether they've been "opened" by that point or not. He was always one looking to have an impact and be heard, and what better way than a challenge to a sitting president? It's unlikely that Humphrey is going to work to appease the southern states on busing and other civil rights issues, and he probably won't include too many southerners in his cabinet. Also with having both the POTUS and VPOTUS from very northern states, I think Wallace would have an easy time making Humphrey's path to the nomination a hellish experience through the south. He would also be the anti-administration candidate if things weren't going exactly smoothly for HHH, so he might pick up some of the vote from that as well.

None of which is to say that he would defeat President Humphrey. I've no doubt of Humphrey's strength within the majority of the party. The interesting part would be what would happen after the convention, after the Wallace delegates made it messy. I could see, assuming old George doesn't make another third party effort, that those disaffected Southern Democrats that he's just dislocated from the party might bolt for Reagan, handing him the south. That's a lot of EVs in RR's column without much work on his part.

With Wallace, though, it's always hard to tell what he'd do except that he'd definitely throw a wrench in the system. But Humphrey would, I think we can agree, be beatable and Reagan, however unpolished, could carry the day in a close election if George Wallace slips HHH up on the tightrope he's walking with the south.

OTOH, if Reagan is the nominee and Wallace runs as a 3rd party (as he did in '68), Wallace would essentially take away all of Reagan's swing voters in the south. That could give you a Humphrey landslide even if he's a damaged candidate.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

OTOH, if Reagan is the nominee and Wallace runs as a 3rd party (as he did in '68), Wallace would essentially take away all of Reagan's swing voters in the south. That could give you a Humphrey landslide even if he's a damaged candidate.

Yes, Wallace is going to definitely primary Humphrey, but he'll lose. He'll hurt Reagan more in the general if he runs, which depends on the polling.

[terrellk]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Yes, Wallace is going to definitely primary Humphrey, but he'll lose. He'll hurt Reagan more in the general if he runs, which depends on the polling.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

OTOH, if Reagan is the nominee and Wallace runs as a 3rd party (as he did in '68), Wallace would essentially take away all of Reagan's swing voters in the south. That could give you a Humphrey landslide even if he's a damaged candidate.

Oh, I absolutely agree that a Wallace third party run would destroy Reagan's shot at the presidency like a Peep in the microwave, and for all I know that's the direction he might go. I was just speculating about how an intra-party challenge from Wallace could damage Humphrey going into the general and provide Reagan a shot at victory.

Also, I doubt an AIP challenge would give Humphrey a landslide in anyway except in the Electoral College. It might be that the popular vote percentages would look like OTL's 1992 while Humphrey would pick up most of the populous states making the map appear to be a lopsided victory, but giving him only a plurality of the popular vote.

That said, do you think there's any way that Humphrey might be able to dump Muskie for a moderate southerner without appearing desperate?