Goldwater Beats LBJ

[NickCT]

Originally Posted by Linsanity

LBJ was riding on Kennedy sympathy domestic successes, and a very weak yet overly principle opponent. For everything Goldwater threw at LBJ, LBJ got the last laugh. My favorite one is "In your heart you know he's right" (regarding Goldwater). The Johnson camp responded mocking his hawkish hot-head attitude with "In your heart you know he might." (Pull the nuclear trigger, so to speak.)

What if Bobby Kennedy challenges Johnson? Improbable, sure, but I don't think it's completely ASB considering Kennedy's general hate towards Johnson...

[NickCT]

Originally Posted by The Conservative Fellah

What if Bobby Kennedy challenges Johnson? Improbable, sure, but I don't think it's completely ASB considering Kennedy's general hate towards Johnson...

Should've read the whole thing :P

ultimately I don't think you could challenge RFK's experience as AG and in foreign policy just because he wasn't elected to office. If Petraues for Condi were to run today I bet they'd gain substantial report. RFK would say "it isn't your title, it's what you do with that title..." or something like that...

[RogueBeaver]

At one point in July '64 LBJ had a major downer and considered withdrawing- Reedy even had a statement typed up. Lady Bird dissuaded LBJ from doing it. So there's a potential POD. Remember that IOTL the delegates gave RFK a 20+ minute standing ovation.

[demonkangaroo]

Well, if you're interested in a Goldwater presidency, there is a timeline somewhere on the board with a Goldwater presidency. I think its called "Say What?"

[RogueBeaver]

Originally Posted by demonkangaroo

Well, if you're interested in a Goldwater presidency, there is a timeline somewhere on the board with a Goldwater presidency. I think its called "Say What?"

In '68, not '64.

[Linsanity]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

At one point in July '64 LBJ had a major downer and considered withdrawing- Reedy even had a statement typed up. Lady Bird dissuaded LBJ from doing it. So there's a potential POD. Remember that IOTL the delegates gave RFK a 20+ minute standing ovation.

Much of that ovation was because of the way he conducted himself Inthe aftermath of JFKs assassination. While JFK was well liked among the party, RFk was not. New Deal liberals eyed him with suspicion, and didn't like how much control he had with his brother. Had RFK come out gunning after the assassination, we see a different response. Him staying on as a member of the Johnson administration won him respect.

[bguy]

So assuming the Baker scandal does break early, and it weakens LBJ enough that he is unable to get the tax cut and Civil Rights bills passed does that embolden Nixon to throw his own hat into the ring in '64? And if Nixon does run can Goldwater win the GOP nomination or will it end up going to Nixon?

[Emperor Norton I]

Goldwater winning is nearly impossible. I'll give you a 10% chance of it happening, but not much more. He was Mr Conservative in the age of the Liberal consensus who had absolutely no chance at winning the presidency in 1964. JFK would have beaten him soundly just as LBJ did end up beating him solidly.

That 10% chance itself requires serious, serious actions. Everything has to go wrong for the Democrats, and everything has to go absolutely perfect and better than that for the Republicans. A limited nuclear war or something else totally goofy occuring might help.

[Marky Bunny]

Here is a Goldwater wins map, but it is almost ASB!

Goldwater 273
Johnson 265

[Rick the Librarian]

There was a book written on the possibility of a Goldwater victory - it was called "Victory in Vietnam". The author (I have forgotten who), goes on the pretense of the Bobby Baker scandal and Sen. Sam Ervin (later chairman of the Watergate hearings) not willing to sweep it under the rug.

Interesting, but implausible book.

[JJohnson]

I'm not sure of the likelihood, as I haven't read up on the 60s elections and all, but assuming Goldwater were to win, you get:

-no Watergate scandal, and its effects on the media and the psychology of the Republican party, which TTL might try running more "conservative" candidates over the moderate types like Dole, Bush, Ford, etc.
-no EPA
-no Medicare/Medicaid
-no escalation of Vietnam, perhaps a drawdown earlier or some early 60's version of 'shock and awe' to draw the communist Vietnamese to a negotiation table
-no federal funding for education, and possibly no future Department of Education
-no National Endowment for Humanities or NEA
-no Head Start or Food Stamps
-no Gun Control Act of 68
-no Great Society overall or War on Poverty

Without these it is very likely that overall, the federal budget would be much smaller today than OTL, the national debt would be smaller, and according to some, certain societal problems would be either nonexistant or much less severe.

The question is, what would Goldwater do with the civil rights movement? He voted against it OTL, but if he were to be politically astute about it, he'd sponsor such legislation as a candidate and President, and make it some fulfillment of the Civil War Republicans' promises or something to that effect, and prevent the relatively monolithic voting blocs of OTL. This would be interesting to see the effect on the Democrat party of TTL and how they treat their constituents and seek their votes. Also, do we still get the riots in Harlem and Detroit? What does MLK do with Goldwater sponsoring the civil rights legislation and making the Republican party the party of civil rights? Does the Republican Party ever capture the South? With Goldwater, you would very likely butterfly away the Hart-Celler Act of '65 and keep whatever border controls existed before, allowing the Republicans to continue winning in California.

If you were to keep Goldwater, it's possible that TTL's Republicans go more along the libertarian road, and actually dismantle or reduce government rather than just slow its growth, and remove Marshall and Fortas as Supreme Court justices. Whom would Goldwater appoint? This might remove Roe vs. Wade from the national debate of both parties.

It's an interesting turning point and would have ramifications well into the 21st century for both parties.

[Jello_Biafra]

Short of LBJ revealed to be having an illict affair with Nikita Khrushchev, I don't know how it would be possible. It was one of the most lopsided presidential elections in history.

Which, tbh, would be in an interesting ASB scenario...

[Asharella]

Originally Posted by JoeinOhio

Definitely ASB....and I'd say the same thing about McGovern beating Nixon in 1972...Stevenson beating Eisenhower in the 1950s...or the Republicans beating FDR in the 1930s.

There might be a way to have a possible Goldwater win in '64. But it takes earlier PODs.

First one has to have no assassination of JFK or even attempt. So then you have JFK running against Goldwater. There's no sympathy due to the JFK assassination. Also it is unlikely that JFK would have had the legislative victories that LBJ had in 64.

But I still think that isn't enough. We need an even earlier POD. What could make JFK likely to lose to Goldwater in '64? Is there anything that could have gone different in his presidency that would make him seem a weak, ineffective President who puts America at risk?

Well, there was something that happened in the Fall of '62 that might have gone a lot worse for the U.S.A., making J.F.K. look terrible and even causing some of his generals to resign and denounce him.

What if instead of Krushcev backing down in the Missile Crisis it had been J.F.K. who backed down? What if after all this General LeMay resigned and denounced Kennedy? What if Goldwater had picked LeMay as his VP instead of Miller, whose reknown was due to something noble almost 20 years earlier instead of blood rousing hatred only a few years old?

[Emperor Norton I]

Why do people think JFK could lose to Goldwater, and that LBJ won because of JFK as a martyr and sympathy? I'm not yelling at you, person above, but I have seen that before so I'm forced to ask why that's even a thing? It shouldn't be. LBJ won by a super-majority for the same reason Kennedy would have: Most people aren't going to vote for Barry Goldwater. That's the fact and should be the consensus. The idea of him winning or winning by a landslide based only on sympathy is wrong and should not be even a minority consensus.

On the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK and Khrushchev both backed down. Kennedy withdrew missiles from Turkey and pledged the US would never invade Cuba, and Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba. If LeMay resigned,well...Kennedy hated LeMay. If LeMay bashed Kennedy, I don't know what damage it would have done really. Kennedy could possibly just feel up to, since he resigned, bashing him back since Kennedy thought LeMay was a jackass. As VP, what can he do? Wallace didn't exactly come close to winning in 1968.

[Asharella]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Why do people think JFK could lose to Goldwater, and that LBJ won because of JFK as a martyr and sympathy? I'm not yelling at you, person above, but I have seen that before so I'm forced to ask why that's even a thing? It shouldn't be. LBJ won by a super-majority for the same reason Kennedy would have: Most people aren't going to vote for Barry Goldwater. That's the fact and should be the consensus. The idea of him winning or winning by a landslide based only on sympathy is wrong and should not be even a minority consensus.

On the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK and Khrushchev both backed down. Kennedy withdrew missiles from Turkey and pledged the US would never invade Cuba, and Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba. If LeMay resigned,well...Kennedy hated LeMay. If LeMay bashed Kennedy, I don't know what damage it would have done really. Kennedy could possibly just feel up to, since he resigned, bashing him back since Kennedy thought LeMay was a jackass. As VP, what can he do? Wallace didn't exactly come close to winning in 1968.

The reason is that JFK was a weaker president than we remember him. His legislative accomplishments were not as great as LBJ.

I didn't say that the sympathy factor was everything. But without an assassination you have no sympathy factor and no legislative accomplishments which were part of why LBJ won so big. The reason the sympathy factor was important was because it was used by LBJ to get his agenda through Congress, thus making him a successful president. But it wasn't the only part. LBJ was better than JFK at getting Congress to do his agenda.

Note on the Cuban Missile Crisis I said that the outcome would have to be one that appears to be a backing down of JFK, one where he is weak. That's the only way I can see a Goldwater victory. In OTL both sides back down but both sides were able to sell it at home as the other side giving in. I'm saying that for JFK to be sufficiently perceived as weak so it becomes possible for Goldwater to win, the crisis has to be one where only JFK backs down.

Is that likely? Well, not really unless we have a much earlier POD, one that changes the character of JFK. That of course is difficult because his character was formed by Joe Sr., so we'd need something to change how Joe raised his sons. The difficulty here is that we need a POD that changes things enough so that JFK would back down but not change them enough that JFK doesn't end up being president.

I'm sure it's possible. But it would take someone who's much more informed about the Kennedys than I am.

But I am still convinced that this is the only possible route to go to get a Goldwater victory in OTL.

[Republican Jim]

Jack wasn't a lock to win the '64 election, which is part of the reason he was in Dallas in November of 1963.

This is more hearsay than fact, but, there was also a good chance that LBJ wouldn't be on the ticket in '64 and this would weaken Jack's value in the South at a crucial time in history. (I have read different things that both credit and discredit the LBJ thing. There is more stuff to discredit this, but from my assessment of what I've read, Jack was considering this.)

That being said, Goldwater could've possibly beaten Jack in the '64 contest, if he could secure the nomination. The sympathy thing did play a big part in '64 because plain and simple, America was infatuated with the Kennedy's. This is the reason the GOP rallied behind Barry in '64, and not a stronger establishment candidate. Nobody in the party other Goldwater actually thought they could win. Kind of like '96.

Rockefeller had too much baggage to secure the nod, so more than likely it would've been an Eisenhower Republican like Henry Cabot Lodge or a Tafter like Everett Dirksen. Not saying that Dirksen would run, but someone like him.

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by Asharella

Is that likely? Well, not really unless we have a much earlier POD, one that changes the character of JFK. That of course is difficult because his character was formed by Joe Sr., so we'd need something to change how Joe raised his sons. The difficulty here is that we need a POD that changes things enough so that JFK would back down but not change them enough that JFK doesn't end up being president.

I'm sure it's possible. But it would take someone who's much more informed about the Kennedys than I am. .

You have to factor in Jack's health - he was a very sick man while President, but was never incapacitated. There is literature out there that says Jack may not have lived past 1965 due to his health problems. Factoring that into OTL, Jack may have backed down due to him focusing on his state of health, and Barry may have had a shot.

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Asharella

What if instead of Krushcev backing down in the Missile Crisis it had been J.F.K. who backed down? What if after all this General LeMay resigned and denounced Kennedy? What if Goldwater had picked LeMay as his VP instead of Miller, whose reknown was due to something noble almost 20 years earlier instead of blood rousing hatred only a few years old?

That would have been a terrifying Presidential pair to most Americans. LeMay's nuke-o-philia actually helped drag George Wallace down in the polls in 1968, even among Wallace's conservative supporters. Goldwater/LeMay would be seen as the "Dr. Strangelove ticket".

[Linsanity]

JFK liked Barry Goldwaters chances of winning the nomination, because he thought he was easy to beat. Goldwater and Kennedy were shown together a lot because Kennedy liked the idea of running against someone so beatable.

[RogueBeaver]

They were also personal friends who wanted to organize some townhall-style debates were Goldwater nominated.