WI: No Richard Nixon

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by Killer300

With the last, wouldn't Goldwater's loss interrupt this process? Without Nixon, they have no way except Reagan(who may be in the Goldwater camp) else to nominate.

They've still got Rocky. 1964 could pan out the same way it did in OTL, with Rocky and Barry battling it out for the nomination. If Rocky wins the nomination it's a victory of Ike's faction. If Barry wins it shows the division in the party and makes it a million times easier for whoever the Democrat is to win.

Funny thing about Goldwater, he really isn't as extreme as the media painted him up to be. He was actually, in his later years, a democratic leaning Libertarian.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Republican Jim

They've still got Rocky. 1964 could pan out the same way it did in OTL, with Rocky and Barry battling it out for the nomination. If Rocky wins the nomination it's a victory of Ike's faction. If Barry wins it shows the division in the party and makes it a million times easier for whoever the Democrat is to win.

Funny thing about Goldwater, he really isn't as extreme as the media painted him up to be. He was actually, in his later years, a democratic leaning Libertarian.

With the last, while this is true, this is more on social matters, where as economics... I won't touch this.

But okay, I could Rockefeller, which is nice to me, because it means the GOP becomes a nice, and safe... progressive party? Not sure how to describe Rockefeller's viewpoints.

This would perhaps mean the Dems turn into a Populist Party, which is hardly a bad thing in my eyes, as it prevents a purely left versus right style engagement ,which is unhealthy in a two party system.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Killer300

With the last, wouldn't Goldwater's loss interrupt this process? Without Nixon, they have no way except Reagan(who may be in the Goldwater camp) else to nominate.

This.

Besides the McCarthy era Red Butterflies, Eisenhower's VP (likely Knowland) in '60 is going to loose to JFK. So the real problem arises in '68. Who will be President?

The Southern Strategy is a metatrend that Nixon didn't invent; he took advantage of it. Various peoples noticed the fracturing of the 'solid south' due to the Civil Rights issue. Reagan was one of the first people IOTL that Nixon noticed successfully using the 'subtle race card' (welfare, etc.) to do something Nixon himself failed to do - become Gov. of California.

So, the groundwork had been established in '64 by the Goldwater conservative faction. Some 75% of delegates at '68 RNC labeled themselves as 'conservatives.' Come '68 we are going to have the same players as IOTL. Rockefeller, Romney, and Reagan are all going to make a play for it.

Romney will likely go down the way he did IOTL. Either that or split the liberal vote with Rocky. Rocky will be far and away the establishment/media choice. Question is... who does Sen. Thurmond want? Reagan, that's who. Southern vote plus California and Goldwater's Arizona, Reagan is starting at around 380 delegates at least. With 75% of the delegates reporting as conservative, and with no other option around, Miami Beachis Reagan's party.

Using extreme butterfly nets, Reagan beats Humphrey in '68.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

Using extreme butterfly nets, Reagan beats Humphrey in '68.

I agree with most of what you wrote except this part. I'm not so sure Reagan wins in 1968, especially if Wallace is still in the race. Wallace still takes many of the southern states Reagan would probably carry in a two person race. Also, Reagan would not do as well as Nixon in states like Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. You flip 4 or 5 of them and Humphrey wins outright. You flip a couple of them and it goes to the House and Humphrey still wins.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar

I agree with most of what you wrote except this part. I'm not so sure Reagan wins in 1968, especially if Wallace is still in the race. Wallace still takes many of the southern states Reagan would probably carry in a two person race. Also, Reagan would not do as well as Nixon in states like Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. You flip 4 or 5 of them and Humphrey wins outright. You flip a couple of them and it goes to the House and Humphrey still wins.

Except Reagan likely flips Texas. Sen. Percy as his running mate keets IL in the GOP column. Reagan looses Ohio, NJ and Wisc to Humphrey. I agree a Reagan win is not a certain thing; I'd say 2 to 1 odds depending on the scenario.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

Except Reagan likely flips Texas. Sen. Percy as his running mate keets IL in the GOP column. Reagan looses Ohio, NJ and Wisc to Humphrey. I agree a Reagan win is not a certain thing; I'd say 2 to 1 odds depending on the scenario.

OK, I give you Texas, but then your whole map relies on Reagan choosing Percy and holding onto Illinois.

Now, if Humphrey takes New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin that puts the EV at Reagan 272, Humphrey 221, and Wallace 45. That's really close. Also, Delaware barely went for Nixon, and that could possibly go to Humphrey over Reagan. That brings Reagan down to 269 and shifts the decision to the House where Humphrey wins.

[Wolfpaw]

Whittaker Chambers just goes to Mundt instead of Nixon. It's an Eisenhower-Knowland ticket in '52 and '56. Goldwater is likely the nominee in '60 (since nobody is going to make that nutty drunk Knowland president), with Reagan running in '68.

The big question is, "Who's the Mob's Main Man in D.C.?" because The Boys are gonna want carte blanche on Vegas, Latin America, and they want Hoffa out of jail.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar

OK, I give you Texas, but then your whole map relies on Reagan choosing Percy and holding onto Illinois.

Doesn't have to be Percy - Rhodes gives him Ohio, Chase gives him NJ and east coast cred. Reagan isn't going to go with an out-and-out liberal like Lindsay but a moderate VP is in no way out of the question. I agree it'll be close, just more likely to go to Reagan.

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Whittaker Chambers just goes to Mundt instead of Nixon. It's an Eisenhower-Knowland ticket in '52 and '56. Goldwater is likely the nominee in '60 (since nobody is going to make that nutty drunk Knowland president), with Reagan running in '68.

The big question is, "Who's the Mob's Main Man in D.C.?" because The Boys are gonna want carte blanche on Vegas, Latin America, and they want Hoffa out of jail.

... can you explain a little more on this last part?

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

... can you explain a little more on this last part?

Um, Nixon was mobbed up the wazoo? This isn't exactly a secret. His first campaign manager, Murray Chotiner, had well-known connections with Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, and Mickey Cohen (the latter of who--along with Lansky and Luciano--raised $75,000 for Nixon's first campaign).

Nixon was accordingly treated like a prince whenever he floated down to Havana or any of the other Mob playgrounds, where the Boys comped his rooms and covered his steep gambling debts (that's how he met Bebe Rebozo back in '51, another intimate of Mr. Lansky). The Mob was able to sell Vegas to Howard Hughes (another longtime Nixon backer) thanks to the Administration not enforcing anti-trust laws, which was also part of a Hoffa pardon deal made around the '68 election.

Of course, when the Attorney General's wife told journalists that Nixon had mob ties, the White House launched a rather vicious smear campaign against her, accusing her of being an alcoholic and a lunatic.

So if no Nixon, who is the Mob going to invest in?

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

So if no Nixon, who is the Mob going to invest in?

Oh okay, I got ya. They'd probably diversify IMO, not necessarily go for the gold. Lindsay seems like a possibility. Only way he was able to suppress some race riots was with mafia help. Or Gov. Rhodes, who is dependent on the labor vote.

Maybe they go with a Dem?

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

Oh okay, I got ya. They'd probably diversify IMO, not necessarily go for the gold. Lindsay seems like a possibility. Only way he was able to suppress some race riots was with mafia help. Or Gov. Rhodes, who is dependent on the labor vote.

Maybe they go with a Dem?

I think that they'd see that as too obvious. I mean, Dems are the big city party of bosses and labor and "corruption," so to speak. As one Congressional investigator once said, "If you were Meyer, who would you invest your money in? Some politician named Clams Linguini? Or a nice Protestant boy from Whittier, California?"

My guess is that they'll try to find a Republican willing to play ball. Rhodes sounds like a good candidate.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

I think that they'd see that as too obvious. I mean, Dems are the big city party of bosses and labor and "corruption," so to speak. As one Congressional investigator once said, "If you were Meyer, who would you invest your money in? Some politician named Clams Linguini? Or a nice Protestant boy from Whittier, California?"

My guess is that they'll try to find a Republican willing to play ball. Rhodes sounds like a good candidate.

Actually, interesting scenario is a deadlocked convention between Reagan and Rockefeller/Romney wings of the GOP. Rhodes might play well as a proper compromise candidate in a Nixonless world. He was a 'favorite son' candidate IOTL in Miami Beach. Say Tennessee doesn't go the way of the rest of the south because of Reagan's TVA comments and the 'solid south' fractures. Reagan is ashamed but the 'Stop Rockefeller' movement takes hold, with "Rhodes-Chase '68" and has a nice ring to it.

'68 is really the final chance for a brokered nomination in American politics. Both Rhodes and Chase seem to have potential for mob influence.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

Actually, interesting scenario is a deadlocked convention between Reagan and Rockefeller/Romney wings of the GOP. Rhodes might play well as a proper compromise candidate in a Nixonless world. He was a 'favorite son' candidate IOTL in Miami Beach. Say Tennessee doesn't go the way of the rest of the south because of Reagan's TVA comments and the 'solid south' fractures. Reagan is ashamed but the 'Stop Rockefeller' movement takes hold, with "Rhodes-Chase '68" and has a nice ring to it.

'68 is really the final chance for a brokered nomination in American politics. Both Rhodes and Chase seem to have potential for mob influence.

Well, what would the potential policies of someone like Rhodes actually be?

Additionally, without Watergate, one has an interesting situation where statist... well, anything, isn't as discredited as it was in OTL.

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Whittaker Chambers just goes to Mundt instead of Nixon. It's an Eisenhower-Knowland ticket in '52 and '56. Goldwater is likely the nominee in '60 (since nobody is going to make that nutty drunk Knowland president), with Reagan running in '68.

The only reason that Reagan ever became a factor was because of his TIME FOR CHOOSING speech at the 1964 RNC. That being said, are we having Reagan speak at the 1960 Convention? This would be a big no-no at this time because as of 1960 Reagan was still registered as a Democrat. He started adopting conservative values in 1958 or 1959, but didn't officially make the party switch until he saw Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs.

Ok, so does Reagan take the same path that he does in OTL? Assuming he makes the party switch, and a convention speech in either '60 or '64, and is pretty much catapulted into the governor's mansion, then he runs in '72. '68 is out of the question because he'll have only one year as Governor, which the GOP will not allow because they want a somewhat established leader.

We can also assume that Reagan doesn't make A TIME FOR CHOOSING and is never catapulted into the national political spotlight. That being said, it's someone from the Eisenhower faction more than likely going against Humphrey.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Republican Jim

The only reason that Reagan ever became a factor was because of his TIME FOR CHOOSING speech at the 1964 RNC. That being said, are we having Reagan speak at the 1960 Convention? This would be a big no-no at this time because as of 1960 Reagan was still registered as a Democrat. He started adopting conservative values in 1958 or 1959, but didn't officially make the party switch until he saw Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs.

Ok, so does Reagan take the same path that he does in OTL? Assuming he makes the party switch, and a convention speech in either '60 or '64, and is pretty much catapulted into the governor's mansion, then he runs in '72. '68 is out of the question because he'll have only one year as Governor, which the GOP will not allow because they want a somewhat established leader.

We can also assume that Reagan doesn't make A TIME FOR CHOOSING and is never catapulted into the national political spotlight. That being said, it's someone from the Eisenhower faction more than likely going against Humphrey.

Wouldn't the faction then end up dominating the GOP? I say this because I'd think Goldwater's faction would be discredited without someone like Nixon later.

[Republican Jim]

Things would carry on pretty much how they have up until that point. There is always going to be the JBS, they just won't come into power like they have.

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Recent scholarship, in particular the new Jean Smith bio, suggests that the choice of Nixon came via Herb Bromwell and Tom Dewey. Supposedly the morning after the nomination they asked Ike who he would like to be his running mate. After first saying he thought that was up to the convention and being told the convention would accept whoever he recommended he came up with the name of Charlie Wilson of General Electric. The advisors then politely told Ike it should be somebody with a political pedigree and they suggested Nixon.

My thought is that Dewey & Co. would have wanted a westerner. Earl Warren, Bill Knowland and Francis Case of South Dakota are possibilities. I would not see any of them as seriously considered for President in 1960. That would have made 1960 a very wide open event, unless Ike emphatically suggested a candidate, which I think was unlikely. I think the most likely scenario would be bring the Goldwater Rockefeller battle forward by 4 years. I do not think the conservatives would have been as strong in 60 as they were 4 years latter so a third compromise candidate would have been a real possibility. John Sherman Cooper, Senator from Kentucky; Clifford Chase, Senator from New Jersey; or Prescott Bush (Imagine 3 of them in the White House).

[su_liam]

Yeah, the Objectivists and the John Birchers will remain marginal fringe groups in the GOP.

There's three ways things can go without a GOP Southern Strategy.

1) The civil rights movement can fizzle in the Democratic Party. Perhaps the GOP will pick up those voters and move in that direction. It's a possibility.

2) Racist southern voters will start to hold their noses and vote for the party of Lincoln. Somewhat like what happened OTL, but less extreme. Dixie will no longer be a lock for the Dems, but it won't be any kind of GOP stronghold. Both parties may campaign a bit more for the racist vote, but neither will embrace racism.

3) The weird tension in the Democratic Party could continue. The civil rights folks pulling in one direction, the Southern Democrats in the other.

Personally, I think the second option is most likely. The third option is pretty unstable, I don't think it would manage to hold through the eighties. In the long run, things will settle into option one or two. Either way, I think progress on civil rights will be slower.

Oh my God! I think I just convinced myself that Richard Nixon advanced the cause of civil rights. AH makes you think the weirdest things...

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Originally Posted by su_liam

Oh my God! I think I just convinced myself that Richard Nixon advanced the cause of civil rights. AH makes you think the weirdest things...

Title IX and the Philadelphia plan don't count? Sure he wasn't super aggressive on it, but I mean he endorsed the ERA after all.

[lounge60]

Cabot Lodge jr ?