Nixon wins in 1960 and 1964: Democratic nominee in 1968?

AT0N

There are several threads about 1960 Nixon victory against JFK and its consequences, but I haven't seen any about potential democratic president after Nixon.
Ok, let's say that Nixon victory in 1960 leads to the successful US invasion of Cuba instead of IRL Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis is obviously averted. I also suppose that there is going to be an attempt to assassinate Nixon around the same time JFK was assassinated because Oswald's motives were tied to the disapproval of the US policy towards Cuba. But in this world the assassin is a little bit less lucky and the attempt on Nixon fails. With good economy, victory in Cuba and a martyr-ish halo after the failed assassination attempt, Nixon defeats Jhonson in 1964. Plus, to make matters clear, let's say that Nixon still implements CRA, although a weaker one.
With such conditions, who do you think the democrats are going to nominate in 1968? Humphrey still looks as a solid candidate for me but I am not 100% sure.
 

AT0N

TheBalkanizer said:
Maybe a bitter and paranoid version of JFK gives it another go for historical irony
Click to expand...
Ehhh, I think that the failure of JFK in 1960 would have made it VERY difficult for a catholic to be nominated. Plus, JFK's health was seriously deterriorating before his assassination.
 

Amadeus

AT0N said:
Ehhh, I think that the failure of JFK in 1960 would have made it VERY difficult for a catholic to be nominated. Plus, JFK's health was seriously deterriorating before his assassination.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Catholics could have responded that Ike's popularity made 1960 all but unwinnable, and JFK did as well as any Democrat could have against his successor. Moreover, by 1960 you had other Catholic politicians like Pat Brown or Eugene McCarthy not only achieve prominence in their respective states but in national politics as well. They would have been well positioned to win the Democratic nomination in 1968, and then the general election after 16 years of Republican rule.

Alternatively, you could have the Protestant Humphrey win in 1968 and 1972, followed by a Republican in 1976, and then a Catholic Democrat (Jerry Brown? Another Kennedy brother? Pat Moynihan? Hugh Carey?) wins in 1980.
 

AT0N

Amadeus said:
Not necessarily. Catholics could have responded that Ike's popularity made 1960 all but unwinnable, and JFK did as well as any Democrat could have against his successor. Moreover, by 1960 you had other Catholic politicians like Pat Brown or Eugene McCarthy not only achieve prominence in their respective states but in national politics as well. They would have been well positioned to win the Democratic nomination in 1968, and then the general election after 16 years of Republican rule.

Alternatively, you could have the Protestant Humphrey win in 1968 and 1972, followed by a Republican in 1976, and then a Catholic Democrat (Jerry Brown? Another Kennedy brother? Pat Moynihan? Hugh Carey?) wins in 1980.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that 1968 JFK is impossible mostly due to his health. And while for me a 1968 catholic looks too bold in a 1960 Nixon victory world, a 1980 catholic democrat (RFK or Ted) sounds reasonable.
 

connorCD

In all honesty, I feel like the effects of JFK's addisons on his lifespan tend to get a bit exaggerated sometimes. Like sure, he's probably not going to live as long as Carter or Reagan, but if I recall there have been many cases where people diagnosed with it have managed to have reasonable life spans. Plus for most members of the Kennedy family that didn't get assassinated (or crashed in a helicopter as what happened with JFK Jr) lived rather remarkably long lives (JFK's own mother lived to be 104!).

I imagine that with all of this put together plus JFK having access to decent healthcare with being a senator and all, I don't imagine he would end up being so ill to the point where he couldn't run in 1968 or even die by then.

That said, I don't think JFK is an automatic shoe-in for 1968 given that he would have the stink of having already lost to Nixon in a seemingly winnable election. Other candidates I could imagine contending would be LBJ (if he weren't already nominated in 1964), Humphrey (same as previous), McCarthy, Scoop Jackson, and maybe RFK if the Dems were willing to give that family another chances. Hell, if the stars end up aligning for him (though that's a big if), we could even see George Wallace take the nomination.
 

nagachate

Personally i always liked the idea of Bob Kennedy winning in 1968 after Nixon in 1960, developing a paranoia mirroring Nixon's OTL. It doesn't take realism into consideration but is funny nevertheless, afterall Bob did had a reputation of ruthlessness like Nixon
 

AT0N

connorCD said:
That said, I don't think JFK is an automatic shoe-in for 1968 given that he would have the stink of having already lost to Nixon in a seemingly winnable election. Other candidates I could imagine contending would be LBJ (if he weren't already nominated in 1964), Humphrey (same as previous), McCarthy, Scoop Jackson, and maybe RFK if the Dems were willing to give that family another chances. Hell, if the stars end up aligning for him (though that's a big if), we could even see George Wallace take the nomination.
Click to expand...
Actually, a Scoop Jackson in 1968 sounds as a really interesting prospect. If Nixon decided not to send troops to Vietnam seeing it as not important geopolitically for the US while trying to establish closer ties with the PRC on platform of common anti-Sovietism in mid-60s, Jackson could have attacked Nixon as being not anti-communist enough. In this scenario the democrats would establish themselves as a left-wing hawkish New Dealers.
 

Deleted member 180541

All other Kennedy brothers apart from JFK would be irrelevant in this timeline. There is no chance any of them get close to the nomination.

In this timeline the Bay of Pigs invasion is successful. Nixon would focus on building a pro-USA regime in Cuba rather then getting involved in Vietnam.

Reagan would never get involved in politics in this timeline. With Nixon winning in 1960 there would be no Goldwater in 1964 which inspired Reagan to enter politics. The GOP remains a moderate party both on economic and social issues.

Nixon would also likely be pro-Civil Rights throughout his presidency which would butterfly the Southern Strategy in 1968.

The moderates in the GOP would likely prop up a conservative candidate similar to Goldwater in 1968. This is because the moderates would want to consolidate their hold on the party by discrediting the conservatives electorally. They would also realise that 1968 was a Democrat year.

Personally, I see either Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson getting the nomination. Perhaps on a more hawkish platform against communism, an idea which has already been mentioned on this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZeroFrame

ZeroFrame

Assuming Nixon is successful I’d go with Scoop Jackson. He mixes a hawkish foreign policy (that would appeal to Nixon voters) and a left wing economic policy that appeals to liberals. Whether he wins in 1968 is up in the air IMO, depending on how good his campaign is.

Kennedy winning the nomination or any of his brothers winning it in 1968 is not going to happen considering Kennedy lost in 1960 and only a couple of presidential candidates who failed to be elected have been renominated.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

I'm iffy on any more Kennedys in the White House if JFK loses 1960. I'm against the insta-Addison's trope but I'm also against the Kennedy destiny trope. RFK was not a born politician. He was a power broker. Basically a backroom bastard. He would have likely remained one. Teddy may not have a decent electoral career by 1968.

If JFK is in shape, then maybe. But if 4 years is a lifetime, 8 years is an eon in politics. How many people that were assumed to be the next president 8 years prior were even nominated by their party 8 years later? Nixon coming back was shocking for that reason. It basically came down to "who else?" having no decent contender. And it was a matter that Nixon simmered his career as the background Republican elder for 8 years.

I'm always a fan of Humphrey as the stable go-to. Its shocking he didn't become president. But at the same time, the world of this 1968 would be very different and all the small details will make all the large details inevitably different. For story sake, there's a number of contenders. Realistically, it may be a nobody of the OTL you could never imagine.

TheBalkanizer said:
Maybe a bitter and paranoid version of JFK gives it another go for historical irony
Click to expand...
"He, err, uh, sleeps with the fishes"

"You killed him!?"

"No, I made him chowda!"
 
Last edited:

Marius Mazzini

Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson seems the most likely as others have mentioned since Nixon probably won't do as much on the economic front as on foreign policy or civil rights issues. I could see a relatively more European style late Sixties political ferment in the US that is driven much more by labour unions and blue collar workers demanding an expansion of the welfare state rather than a college youth led antiwar movement. Given his OTL trajectory, we can certainly see Martin Luther King Jr. at the forefront of such a movement. I wonder if with the black vote being slightly competitive in TTL due to Nixon being credited with the CRA if you might see a black VP nominee for the Dems in 1968.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

On the Republican side, no gubernatorial candidate Dick Nixon may mean longevity for Jerry Brown, meaning you may butterfly Reagan. No "A Time For Choosing" speech without Goldwater as candidate may butterfly Reagan. So you completely change the history of Ronald Reagan.
 

Deleted member 180541

What about JFK in 1980? Assuming he dies in the late 1990s?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AT0N

Abbé Faria said:
What about JFK in 1980? Assuming he dies in the lates 1990s?
Click to expand...
Actually, if its Scoop Jackson in 1968 (which sounds most interesting to me) I think that the most likely dem candidate for 1980 would have been Jeane Kirkpatrick

And even if its Kennedy in 1980, it's going to be RFK or Ted, not JFK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top