WI: No Chappaquidick-Kennedy '72

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Ted Kennedy was widely favored as the Democratic nominee in a future election before the Chappaquidick incident permanently damaged his chances and reputation. But what if it hadn't happened and Kennedy had been able to become the Democratic nominee in 1972? Could he have had a chance of beating the still-popular Nixon?

[Stonewall's Lightning]

Originally Posted by WestVirginiaRebel

Ted Kennedy was widely favored as the Democratic nominee in a future election before the Chappaquidick incident permanently damaged his chances and reputation. But what if it hadn't happened and Kennedy had been able to become the Democratic nominee in 1972? Could he have had a chance of beating the still-popular Nixon?

It would have been difficult to beat a still popular Nixon, even though the war in Vietnam was still going. I think Kennedy would still be a hard sell down south, where Nixon was very strong.

Also with Teddy being Teddy, I think another "problem" would arise to take the place of chappaquidick.

[big_ben_mi]

He might not of gotten the nomination then but he might have been able to get it later perhaps instead of carter?

[Dave]

It all depends on when he makes his first run.

72: Crushed by Nixon, probably by the same margin.

76: His best chance.

80: Even if the party jettisoned a sitting President (Carter), the GOP had that one signed and sealed.

84: Not unless his running mate was Christ Himself.

88: He'd have as good a chance as anyone else running for the Democratic nod that year.

92: I don't know how the primaries would shape up.

96: No point dumping Clinton.

00: Last Chance.

04 and later: Too damn old.

[Mark E.]

72 - Muskie/Kennedy defeats Nixon/Agnew
76 - Reagan defeats Muskie

Inflation takes off; Reaganomics will not yet work.

80 - Kennedy defeats Reagan
84 - Economic cycle may favor Kennedy.

[thomwood]

Originally Posted by Mark E.

72 - Muskie/Kennedy defeats Nixon/Agnew
76 - Reagan defeats Muskie

Inflation takes off; Reaganomics will not yet work.

80 - Kennedy defeats Reagan
84 - Economic cycle may favor Kennedy.

No chance Muskie beats Nixon in 72 (although he probably `should' have gotten nom OTL). I think you have to go back to 68. Maybe possible way to do it: 68, Johnson decides to run, `outconservatives' Nixon by dumping Humphrey for Wallace, winning the south (although that too would never happen, but for sake of argument). In 72, everyone's ready for a change. Nixon-Rockefeller showdown. Probably Nixon. No Watergate, Nixon wins in 76. Time for a change again, big inflation problems. Kennedy in in 80.

[Expat]

Any chance butterflies cause Watergate or a Watergate-like incident to break BEFORE the election?

We can assume that the Nixon campaign would be playing dirty tricks no matter who their opponent- in fact going against a Kennedy might cause them to make even more trouble for themselves. If they get more reckless, who's to say a bigger fish isn't caught and grilled in public? If by September/October it looks like Nixon's been involved in some serious illegality, Kennedy's got it in the bag.

But it all depends on chance.

[General Mung Beans]

Originally Posted by thomwood

No chance Muskie beats Nixon in 72 (although he probably `should' have gotten nom OTL). I think you have to go back to 68. Maybe possible way to do it: 68, Johnson decides to run, `outconservatives' Nixon by dumping Humphrey for Wallace, winning the south (although that too would never happen, but for sake of argument). In 72, everyone's ready for a change. Nixon-Rockefeller showdown. Probably Nixon. No Watergate, Nixon wins in 76. Time for a change again, big inflation problems. Kennedy in in 80.

Nixon can't run for a third term.

[Ynnead]

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Nixon can't run for a third term.

That's not true, according to The Watchmen (sorry could not resist.)

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

That's not true, according to The Watchmen (sorry could not resist.)

Yeah, if he manages to fiddle with the thingy-th Amendment... dunno how. Like Reagan does in War Birds.

Now, this probably sounds stupid, but for a change I would like to ask others here rather than checking out wiki or wherever... what exactly happened at Chappaquidick? Not being American, also being fairly young, it's not really part of my "everybody knows" background knowledge, though I have heard it referred to many times.

[General Mung Beans]

Originally Posted by alt_historian

Yeah, if he manages to fiddle with the thingy-th Amendment... dunno how. Like Reagan does in War Birds.

Now, this probably sounds stupid, but for a change I would like to ask others here rather than checking out wiki or wherever... what exactly happened at Chappaquidick? Not being American, also being fairly young, it's not really part of my "everybody knows" background knowledge, though I have heard it referred to many times.

This should be adequete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

[thomwood]

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Nixon can't run for a third term.

Of course. What I'm saying is:

68. Johnson stays in, beats Nixon.
72. Nixon beats whoever for his 1st term.
76. Nixon beats whoever for his 2nd term.
80. Teddy beats Nixon's VP (probably, but whichever Republican runs) for his 1st term.

But good point about there being a different Watergate if needed in 76.

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

This should be adequete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

Dammit, you just did exactly the opposite of what I've asked...*sigh* I will head over to wiki then, thanks.

EDIT: OK, just read some of that... seems very dubious, overall.

[Expat]

Originally Posted by thomwood

Of course. What I'm saying is:

68. Johnson stays in, beats Nixon.
72. Nixon beats whoever for his 1st term.
76. Nixon beats whoever for his 2nd term.
80. Teddy beats Nixon's VP (probably, but whichever Republican runs) for his 1st term.

But good point about there being a different Watergate if needed in 76.

Would the Republicans really put Nixon on the ticket a third time if he's already lost in '60 and '68?
He's got to be pretty vulnerable in those '72 primaries...

[big_ben_mi]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

That's not true, according to The Watchmen (sorry could not resist.)

Or Back to the Future in the Alternate 1985.

[thomwood]

Originally Posted by Expat

Would the Republicans really put Nixon on the ticket a third time if he's already lost in '60 and '68?
He's got to be pretty vulnerable in those '72 primaries...

yes, that's a good point. no more william jennings bryan strategy