How would an RFK Victory change Elections?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Say Robert Kennedy survives and wins in 1968 against Nixon. My question -- how does this change the unofficial "rules" of future Presidential elections? And what would be an example of a future election playing out according to this different conventional knowledge?

Some examples -- Robert Kennedy announced his campaign after the New Hampshire primary; would his winning the nomination (then the election) change how future candidates run their campaigns, making late entries into the race more common? Also -- if Bobby beats Humphrey, and then Nixon, it could kill the modern idea of a VP stepping stone. In fact, it would be the third time in the 20th Century (after Taft and Hoover)* that a President ran for his party's "third term" based (in part) on his experience in the Cabinet of the past eight years.

What else is there?

*to a lesser extent, illustrated by the 1920 DNC fight b/w McAdoo and Palmer, and Wallace's initial rise in 1940

[vultan]

It really all depends on whether there is a McGovern-Fraser Commission or equivalent. My guess is no, as it's establishment was a promise made at the convention to liberals unsatisfied by how the convention machinations got someone nominated who hadn't even been entered into any primaries.

Here, since Kennedy wins the nomination at the convention AND does well in the primaries, it would be a moot point.

THAT would be the lasting legacy of Kennedy winning.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by vultan

<snip>

That is a huge change -- I tend to think something like the McGovern Commission changes were going to happen at some point, but I can see the old style of politics continuing at least to the 1990's...

[RogueBeaver]

RFK would probably impose a McGovern-Fraser analogue whether as POTUS or as unofficial party leader during the Nixon presidency.

I don't see it killing the idea of VP as stepping stone. Of the 4 incumbent VPs (Nixon, HHH, GHWB, Gore) since 1960 who've run for POTUS, only one succeeded as an incumbent: GHWB, and he was a 1-termer. So that point is moot IMO.

As for late entries: Not during the primaries themselves once the current system is established. (see Rick Perry, Fred Thompson and Wes Clark for details) In those days, the primaries were a handful of contests designed to prove a candidate's electability in key states for the bosses. Bosses controlled 75% of the delegates at DNC '68, primaries only contributed 25%. RFK managed a late splash in no small part because he had a preexisting organization and fundraising network plus 100% name ID.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

I don't see it killing the idea of VP as stepping stone. Of the 4 incumbent VPs (Nixon, HHH, GHWB, Gore) since 1960 who've run for POTUS, only one succeeded as an incumbent: GHWB, and he was a 1-termer. So that point is moot IMO.

First off, many thanks RB, for the reply.

The VP stepping stone may be moot (as Presidents go), but I'm curious as to how the elections play out, particularly how nominees are chosen, and how involved the voters are.

[RogueBeaver]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

First off, many thanks RB, for the reply.

The VP stepping stone may be moot (as Presidents go), but I'm curious as to how the elections play out, particularly how nominees are chosen, and how involved the voters are.

I don't see the MFC process turning out that differently than OTL. Maybe WTA is given more weight, maybe PR. Maybe supers are weighted differently. But the old system will die, by the 1960s it had become an anachronism and in '68 only the Daley machine was left in operation.

[jerseyrules]

Perry 2012?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by jerseyrules

Perry 2012?

Where the heck did that come from?

[Electric Monk]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

Where the heck did that come from?

A minimal butterfly scenario where Perry's late entry works (as RFK's late entry did, ITTL). A better example would be a Jeb Bush entry now, IOTL.

As has been said it depends on the McGovern Commission, particularly how butterflies would change it. If, perhaps, it designs the primary field ahead of time? Or WTA instead of proportional (although that wasn't finally settled, IOTL, until 1980 IIRC)? Etc…. As regards late entry of candidates, if the Commission goes with a five month primary field (February to June) and spaces them out, then even two week ahead registration would allow late entrants.

There are a lot of little differences that could add up to a very different primary field.