Would Robert Kennedy have become President?

maverick

Banned
Most people would say yes...

People with more political knowledge point to the fact that Humphrey would have won the 1968 nomination in any case, having more delegates and all...

But Maybe if he can stage a comeback in 1972 or 1976...
 

Hawkwood

Pres. RFK is Possible

RFK did defeat Humphrey in the North Dakota primary the same day he won California (and was shot). It is true that he had an uphill fight. Johnson's machine had the institutional power. If he had knocked McCarthy out of the race (likely) he might have stood a chance. It is easy just to look at the majic of the Kennedy name, but he was a bit leftish for the times. MLK had been assassinated that year and people seemed ready for stability and order. It is possible that Nixon could have still won. I think Kennedy would have had a better chance than Humphrey. All in all, the odds are that he would have had a better chance in 1972.
 

Starchilde

Interesting. Just speculating here on what Hawkwood said. Suppose that at the Democratic election a back room deal had been brokered (something that I think might still have been possible as late as 1968) and RFK has led the Democratic ticket. As Hawkwood suggests, he would probably have faired quite a bit better than Humphrey, but the stability question does come up. The country was fairly divided at the time, I'm wondering if this would have lead to a situation where one candidate would win the popular vote and one might win the electoral college. I see the potential for a lot of dirty deeds in this election and a possible situation where the country might fracture.

Just speculating, I could be completely wrong though.
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

maverick said:
Most people would say yes...

People with more political knowledge point to the fact that Humphrey would have won the 1968 nomination in any case, having more delegates and all...

But Maybe if he can stage a comeback in 1972 or 1976...
Click to expand...

Opinion is actually heavily split among historians, campaign staff, press, and those dedicated amateurs like myself. Although Humphrey was leading in delegates he did not have anywhere near a majority. RFK had the support of Mayor Daley and he swung a vast amount of weight (note that IOTL Daley almost drafted Teddy Kennedy because he didn't like McCarthy or Humphrey and Jesse Unruh—leader of California's delegates—didn't like Humphrey or Johnson. If Teddy had been drafted I'd actually give him a 60%+ chance of winning the nomination).

I'd say it's around a 40% chance RFK wins the nomination. Regardless, he wins the '72 nomination if he wants it.

Hawkwood said:
It is possible that Nixon could have still won. I think Kennedy would have had a better chance than Humphrey.
Click to expand...

Actually if Kennedy was the nominee there is a strong possibility that Reagan would be the Republican nominee. One of the Reagan campaigns strongest arguments was that Nixon couldn't beat a Kennedy and with RFK still in the race the Reagan/Rockefeller delegate challenge which came very close IOTL to toppling Nixon may in fact do so. The delegates aren't going to vote for Rockefeller after all. Stop Nixon on the first ballot, and he loses over a hundred delegates to Reagan. Nixon losing the second ballot defeats his argument about him being the only guy that can win. Support swings to Reagan, and he likely picks up steam rapidly from the Southern delegates.

That said I say RFK wins the general against Nixon or Reagan, and it's at least as close as it was IOTL.

----------- And, to save time:

President Robert Kennedy & RFK Survives

The problem for the Democratic Party of 1968 was the convention. Oh lots of other things to be sure (McGovern's rules committee for one, but that wouldn't matter until '72) but America watched the streets burn in Chicago.

Say RFK doesn't get killed, which is easy. Opinion is divided of course. Theodore H. White (Making of the President, 1968) doesn't like what ifs but says maybe. Jules Witcover (85 Days) says probably. Joe Klein (Politics Lost) says Kennedy would have won at the convention. Plenty of others say no.

So. It would have been pretty nasty I admit but I could see RFK winning. The general, on the other hand, would be a bitch. Could he win? Maybe. Nixon has the edge, to be sure, but RFK has the name and… well, honesty.

That's the thing I take away from reading about RFK. The man got the problems. He understood them, domestically, in a way Nixon never did and whether or not his ideas would have worked he had them. Spoke truthfully about them.

Nixon won in 1968 but it wasn't fordained. Humphrey's campaign sucked and Nixon's was excellent. RFK was on the ground floor of JFK's brilliant 1960 campaign (including primaries) and he would have understood it far better then Humphrey ever did.

Campaigns matter. So I could see RFK beating Nixon. It wouldn't have been easy, certainly, and it would have required a convention that didn't end in fire but it could have happened.

Arthur Schlesinger said:
Richard Harwood of the Washington Post and other newspapermen began to change their minds about the clamorous crowds. Maybe there was something more to it than demagoguery. "We discovered in 1968," Harwood said later, "this deep, almost mystical bond that existed between Robert Kennedy and the Other America. It was a disquieting experience for reporters.... We were forced to recognize in Watts and Gary and Chimney Rock [Nebraska] that the real stake in the American electoral process involved not the fate of speech-writers and fund-raisers but the lives of millions of people seeking hope out of despair."
Click to expand...
So. That said I believe RFK could win. It's not the most probable result or anything, Nixon was a disciplined and formidable man who had arguably the best campaign team ever assembled up to that point, but it could be done.

Anyway. Other people's options are here and here and here and elsewhere, I'm sure.

I also have Mitchell Freedman's 30 page essay on Bobby winning the 1968 nomination and the general. If anyone is interested PM me your email and I'm happy to send it along. 50 cents at amazon.com so I couldn't pass it up.

From that essay, as concerns the running mate:

Mitchell J. Freedman (How Bobby Kennedy Wins The 1968 Election) said:
The largely unspoken fear, buried deep inside the consciousness of everyone surrounding Robert Kennedy, was that some nut was “out there” waiting to kill him. This unspoken fear was in the air before June 4, 1968 and was likely to intensify as Kennedy closed in on the nomination and the choice of a vice presidential running mate was being considered. Therefore, one would expect the kingmakers or those with “influence,” such as Mayor Daley, Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers union, and other political insiders, to be adamant that Kennedy not choose a “nobody” governor the way Nixon did with the largely unknown Maryland governor, Spiro T. Agnew.

It was therefore probable that the choice would be a Southern Senator who was not up for re-election in 1968, and was willing to run on a national, presidential and vice presidential “ticket.” This immediately narrowed the field to Senator George Smathers of Florida and Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas. Kennedy might also have considered a Midwestern Senator, such as Indiana’s Senator Vance Hartke, also a close Kennedy friend, with Indiana being a State that “thought South” on racial and other cultural issues. But Harkte was an elitist sort of personality compared to Smathers and Yarborough and would not likely have sufficient “coattails” to help Kennedy win in Indiana, let alone any other State.

There is a strong possibility that many leading Kennedy campaign managers would have counseled Kennedy to concentrate on the West, Mid-west and Northeast—and forget the South altogether. After all, Kennedy’s campaign had largely written off the South during the nomination process through June 4, 1968. However, Kennedy would have been the first to recognize he had to run a national campaign to defeat Nixon and keep Wallace from winning a plurality that would more likely send the nation into a political crisis that would remind people of 1860 more than any other presidential year. Therefore, Kennedy would have wanted to win the Electoral College votes of at least one of the two largest populated Southern States, which were (and remain) Texas and Florida, even if Kennedy failed to receive at least 50% of the popular vote against Nixon and Wallace.

Knowing what we know about Robert Kennedy’s experience in planning a successful political campaign, and with seasoned veteran advisers such as Larry O’Brien, Kenny O’Donnell, Joe Dolan, and Mayor Richard Daley—who each knew the importance of placating union leaders and members—Yarborough becomes the most likely choice by a process of elimination. Yarborough was a prairie liberal, more inclined to a “down-home” tone and phrasing that was beginning to be viewed as “conservative” in both urban and suburban environments. Yarborough was also a fearless and principled person who spoke with genuine feeling to white and black working class people. To understand Ralph Yarborough, who is largely forgotten today, one may think of Vermont’s independent politician, Bernie Sanders, with a Southern accent—but even that analogy may not really explain Yarborough’s appeal at that particular time.

A Kennedy-Yarborough ticket would likely have had a diverse and powerful punch that would put both Wallace and Nixon on the defensive, which would be the best way for Democrats to have won a campaign in an environment where more than half of registered Americans were still voting in national elections, where union voters constituted over 40% of the total national voters, and where farmers in rural mid-western States were very much caught up in Kennedy nostalgia, as Kennedy himself saw in rural Nebraska and Kansas where Kennedy traveled in the spring of 1968.

Does Robert Kennedy win in a “landslide,” meaning with 55% or more of the total “popular” vote? No. If Kennedy wins, which is likely, he wins with just over 50% of the vote. But, that popular vote victory also translates into a solid Electoral College win for Kennedy, based upon the demographic breakdown of States at that time. This would, among the factors, include a Kennedy victory over Nixon in Nixon’s home state of California (Nixon barely won against a lackluster Humphrey effort), and the Kennedy-Yarborough ticket winning Texas.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

The Mists Of Time

That's hard to say, there were a lot of factors that would have hurt RFK in the general election.

First, there is no guarantee RFK would have gotten the nomination, and even if he had, I think The Democrats would still have had the kind of fractured raucus convention in 1968 they had in OTL. That convention hurt them regardless of who their nominee was. There was some sense among the voting public of "How are The Democrats going to run the country and deal with issues like Viet Nam when they can't even run and keep order at their own convention?"

Then there was The Viet Nam War. Many felt The Democrats had put us in there, The Democrats under LBJ had escelated the war and had gotten us stuck in there. Whether the Republican nominee was Nixon or Reagan, many felt The Republicans were the one's who would get us out of Southeast Asia and the war. After 8 years of Democrat Presidents and the way the Viet Nam War was going Americans were ready for a change.

If RFK had lived and gotten the nomination I think the 1968 election would have been closer than in OTL, but I think The Republicans would still have won. Yes Kennedy might have come back to win in 1972 or in 1976, but it is very very hard for a Presidential nominee to lose the general election and come back some years later to win the Presidency. Nixon is the only one in modern times who has done that.
 

jmacatty

After 8 years of Democrat Presidents and the way the Viet Nam War was going Americans were ready for a change.

This is one of my pet peeves. It is the Democratic party, not as our jerk in the White House claims, the Democrat party. Having said that, the Kennedy mystique was huge, and RFK had announced his opposition to the war. The convention riots were due to HHH's support of the war and the attempts of the White House to keep peace groups out of the convention. If Bobbie had the delegates to even contest the nomination, there are few, or no riots; if Bobbie wins the nomination, he carries the general election.
 
V-J

V-J

Electric Monk said:
So. It would have been pretty nasty I admit but I could see RFK winning. The general, on the other hand, would be a bitch. Could he win? Maybe. Nixon has the edge, to be sure, but RFK has the name and… well, honesty.
Click to expand...

Assuming a fight between Nixon and Kennedy, I'm almost at the position where I can't really see Kennedy losing, tbh, barring ASB. Obviously, it's not going to be a landslide, but Humprey came within under one percent of winning the popular vote. And this is Hubert Humphrey we're talking about. This is with Humphrey's personality, and his lacklustre campaign, and all the rest of it.

Surely Kennedy could have bettered this? Surely?

Now Kennedy versus Reagan is a completely different matter, though. I wouldn't even want to speculate on that one.
 

jmacatty

In 1968 Kennedy v. Reagan is a walk-over for Kennedy. You forget the times, four years earlier Goldwater, the Reagan exemplar had been destroyed, and Nixon was a moderate Republican. The country was not yet ready for the "Reagan Revolution".
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

V-J said:
Assuming a fight between Nixon and Kennedy, I'm almost at the position where I can't really see Kennedy losing, tbh, barring ASB. Obviously, it's not going to be a landslide, but Humprey came within under one percent of winning the popular vote. And this is Hubert Humphrey we're talking about. This is with Humphrey's personality, and his lacklustre campaign, and all the rest of it.

Surely Kennedy could have bettered this? Surely?
Click to expand...

Humphrey had Johnson's bombing halt in the last days of election. Taking the polling data from September & October (Nixon 42-43, Humphrey 27ish, Wallace 20-21) that was an important factor. Further the labour unions went all out for Humphrey in bringing back blue collar Wallace supporters to the Democratic Party & they likely wouldn't for RFK.

Also, against RFK Nixon would be forced to run a rather different campaign. He probably wouldn't be able to get away with Agnew and would be forced to go with somebody like John Volpe or even—if he sacrificed the South to Wallace—John Lindsay.

Or if he could force Reagan to be VP (interestingly, the Northern delegates were generally ok with Reagan) Nixon could go after the South and the Wallace voters not to mention improve his California position.

Finally his media team might be allowed to actually do some decent ads. Off hand the Republican budget for 1968 was on the order of twenty-five million dollars and they had a lot of that raised before the general election started (meanwhile the Democratic Party had less than zero).

Blow five or ten million dollars in an opening media blitz while RFK is mired in fund-raising….

jmacatty said:
In 1968 Kennedy v. Reagan is a walk-over for Kennedy. You forget the times, four years earlier Goldwater, the Reagan exemplar had been destroyed, and Nixon was a moderate Republican. The country was not yet ready for the "Reagan Revolution".
Click to expand...

But does Reagan take the Wallace vote? Does the country remember Goldwater—or do they see JFK-Johnson-RFK & Viet Nam? Reagan is Governor of California as well, an important state. And, of course, Reagan might espouse Goldwater type policies—but he does in a charming and relatable way that voters love.

You're probably right—but remember Reagan never really looked conservative to voters. Further his record as Governor at the time was not super-conservative or anything, and of course Reagan is probably equal to RFK at the time (I'd have to look it up but I have at least one source where RFK & Reagan went head-to-head at some dinner and RFK lost) in debating and stump speeches. Further, as usual, the Republican Party has vastly more resources—something like a fifteen million dollar edge against negative couple hundred thousand dollars for the Democratic Party opening day of the general election.

All of that aside I'd favour RFK over Reagan a great deal—but it's probably not that much further away in vote % than OTL.


Actually in 1968 Nixon clearly positioned himself as a conservative Republican—it's just that with Rockefeller on his left and Reagan to his right it wasn't as obvious as it might be in other years.



(Does anyone else find it weird that four posters in this thread registered in December '07 and have post counts under 10? I'm not suggesting anything nefarious… it's just odd.)
 

Ward

You also have to rember that George Wallace was also running at the time and he was pulling a lot of support in the south . And the Democratic convetion lost the party a lot of support with the Riots
 

zoomar

As a Gene McCarthy volunteer in that campaign, I doubt it. First, the nomination process leading to the Chicago convention was heavily weighted in favor of party bosses and pro-war LBJ Democrats. Secondly, the presence of two antiwar candidates at the convention would have split the antiwar vote. There was no way McCarthy would have backed out to give RFK Room - we viewed Bobby as a shallow opportunist who only entered the campaign after McCarthy pushed the door open for him. Had Bobby not been assasinated, one of two things probably would have happened in Chicago: (1) Humphrey isnominated in the face of bitter opposition by a minority of the delegates in Chicago and with the street war even worse, or (2) Bobby cops out and accepts the VP position on a Humphrey-led ticket. (1) is essentially OTL, (2) could be interesting. I suspect a Humphry/Kennedy ticket would have won in November as there would be fewer "new Democrats" opting out of the general election.

In retrospect, a Humphrey/Kennedy ticket might have been a great thing. Two liberals, one old-line and the other more populist, both capable of being opportunistic (RFK) or loyal (HHH) resulting in ideological flexibility as situations merited. Actually a lot like Nixon, except starting somewhat to the left and lacking the 5 o-clock shadow and blatant crinimality. No watergate. Less loss of faith in governement and "Washington insiders".
 

Ghost 88

Few points to ponder:
1) Nixon was not seen as a "crook" till after the 72 election.
2) Wallace is taking the 11 "solid South" states out of the Democratic fold because of the Civil Rights Act of 65
3) Reagan may not be eligible to be VP as he is a resident(read citizen) of the same state as Nixon (California).

It would have been tough given the War and the backlash at the CRA-65 for the Dem's to win, just note the much nastier defeat they suffered in 72 even though Nixon had not yet gotten the troops out of Nam.
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

Ghost 88 said:
Few points to ponder:
1) Nixon was not seen as a "crook" till after the 72 election.
2) Wallace is taking the 11 "solid South" states out of the Democratic fold because of the Civil Rights Act of 65
3) Reagan may not be eligible to be VP as he is a resident(read citizen) of the same state as Nixon (California).

It would have been tough given the War and the backlash at the CRA-65 for the Dem's to win, just note the much nastier defeat they suffered in 72 even though Nixon had not yet gotten the troops out of Nam.
Click to expand...

1) No argument since you're supporting me :)

2) IOTL Wallace took just five states. Or do you mean that (aside from Texas) it was either Wallace or the Republicans in the South?

3) Nixon moved to New York, I thought he became a resident there? Regardless it's a non-issue—Nixon just changes his registration to New York.

zoomar said:
As a Gene McCarthy volunteer in that campaign, I doubt it. First, the nomination process leading to the Chicago convention was heavily weighted in favor of party bosses and pro-war LBJ Democrats. Secondly, the presence of two antiwar candidates at the convention would have split the antiwar vote. There was no way McCarthy would have backed out to give RFK Room - we viewed Bobby as a shallow opportunist who only entered the campaign after McCarthy pushed the door open for him. Had Bobby not been assasinated, one of two things probably would have happened in Chicago: (1) Humphrey isnominated in the face of bitter opposition by a minority of the delegates in Chicago and with the street war even worse, or (2) Bobby cops out and accepts the VP position on a Humphrey-led ticket. (1) is essentially OTL, (2) could be interesting. I suspect a Humphry/Kennedy ticket would have won in November as there would be fewer "new Democrats" opting out of the general election.
Click to expand...

Shrug. Lots of people agree with you, but lots of other people say RFK could have taken it.

You viewed RFK wrongly, given what we now know, although I freely admit it took a lot of guts for McCarthy to run. Now if only he had a half-decent job maybe it would have been him nominated and he would have beaten Nixon (he was running 5-10 points ahead of Humphrey in match-ups against Nixon in the general).

(Rapidly condensed version of the essay's bit about the nomination)

Mitchell J. Freedman (How Bobby Kennedy Wins The 1968 Election) said:
Let us begin with why people might reasonably conclude that Kennedy would not likely have won the presidential nomination. On the night Kennedy was shot, and despite having won the California and South Dakota primary elections, Kennedy was a distant second in pledged delegates to his main opponent, US Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey. Humphrey, even after Kennedy’s victories in California and South Dakota, had amassed 994 pledged delegates to Kennedy’s 524 1/2 delegates. Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy, the other major candidate seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, was a distant third with just over 200 delegates. The “magic number” to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for president that year was 1,312 delegates—which meant Humphrey appeared well on his way to winning the nomination.

If there was anything that should have worried Kennedy, it was the fact that, even in June 1968, almost half the delegates had not pledged to any of the three candidates, Humphrey, Kennedy or McCarthy. Some of these “undecided” delegates were pledged, instead, to what were (and still are) called “favorite son” candidates. Favorite son candidates were local or State candidates who were not actually running for president, but were merely a name for delegates to rally around, at least up to the beginning of the national convention, where the actual candidate would be chosen. As of June 4, 1968, there were 1,310 delegates who had not yet pledged to any candidate—which was almost half of the available delegates going to the convention.

Humphrey’s reaction to events leading up to the California primary, which, again, he did not enter, was strangely passive for a man who needed to kick it up a gear to defeat a charging Robert Kennedy. Unlike Eugene McCarthy, who had, by June 1968, become obsessed with anger against Kennedy, Humphrey retained a genuinely positive feeling for Kennedy. Just before the California primary election, Humphrey was in Denver, Colorado with one of his then-closest campaign managers, Ted Van Dyk. Humphrey told Van Dyk regarding the California election: “I want Robert Kennedy to win decisively. Robert Kennedy and I understand each other, we’re essentially straight-line liberal Democrats...”

Humphrey had also said, in a television interview about a week before the California primary election, that he was also willing to terminate his candidacy and step aside if Lyndon Johnson changed his mind and decided to seek re-nomination for president. When considering these statements, made in what was supposed to be a heated presidential nomination race, it becomes reasonable to conclude that Humphrey simply did not have as much “fire in the belly” as Robert Francis Kennedy to fight for the presidential nomination of his party. Unlike Humphrey, Kennedy was fighting to win and did not hesitate to criticize Humphrey. In a national interview with CBS newsman Roger Mudd, just before the California election, Kennedy belittled the “policies” Humphrey “espoused,” saying they would be neither “successful” for the Democratic Party or “the country…” Kennedy also tauntingly said that Humphrey would not fight the difficult fight to secure the nomination, reminding Mudd that Humphrey had abruptly dropped his previous campaign for president in 1960 after losing the primary in West Virginia to Jack Kennedy.

For those who still believe Humphrey would have won the nomination even if Kennedy had not been killed, consider that, after Kennedy was killed, and with Humphrey far ahead of McCarthy, the Democratic Party failed to immediately coalesce around Humphrey. In fact, Humphrey’s campaign essentially stalled. Mayor Daley, for example, believed Humphrey would be unable to carry Daley’s home state of Illinois against Nixon and would falter in other regions of the US, particularly in culturally conservative union strongholds such as New Jersey, Maryland, and non-union blue-collar states such as Florida. Throughout June and July, and up to a week before the national convention, Daley voiced criticisms of Humphrey with various elected officials and was attempting to recruit alternative presidential candidates, including the now martyred Robert Kennedy’s younger brother, the US Senator from Massachusetts, Edward “Ted” Kennedy.

Under an alternative scenario, where Robert Kennedy is alive and actively seeking the presidential nomination, consider that Robert Kennedy, unlike a relative loner such as McCarthy, had already impressed his fellow politicians as having a will to win. There were also more than a few powerful Senate colleagues who respected Kennedy for acting from principle in coming to his positions on the war in Vietnam and the “war” against poverty. On the stump as a presidential candidate, Kennedy had impressed more and more voters around the nation. This was a significant turnaround for Kennedy from 1967, where at least one poll showed Kennedy had a reputation among white voters (more professional class than working class, though) for “courting minorities,” or worse, a candidate who could not “unite” the voting public.

As for McCarthy and his advisers, before they heard the news about Kennedy being shot, they recognized that McCarthy’s opportunity to secure the nomination had collapsed with Kennedy’s latest victories. Worse for McCarthy, who by now was enraged at Kennedy for derailing his campaign, he had nobody but Kennedy to whom he could throw his support. If he threw his support to Humphrey, most of McCarthy’s supporters would have screamed that McCarthy “sold out”—because of Humphrey’s public stance supporting the continuation of the Vietnam War.As for McCarthy and his advisers, before they heard the news about Kennedy being shot, they recognized that McCarthy’s opportunity to secure the nomination had collapsed with Kennedy’s latest victories. Worse for McCarthy, who by now was enraged at Kennedy for derailing his campaign, he had nobody but Kennedy to whom he could throw his support. If he threw his support to Humphrey, most of McCarthy’s supporters would have screamed that McCarthy “sold out”—because of Humphrey’s public stance supporting the continuation of the Vietnam War.

In the early part of 1968, McCarthy famously cut down a Republican presidential contender, George Romney, who had criticized American generals for trying to “brainwash” him during a briefing on the Vietnam War. McCarthy’s response was that Romney’s brain would not need a “washing” to be fooled; only a “light rinse.” One could reasonably conclude that McCarthy’s acerbic wit and his anger against Robert Kennedy were two trains likely to collide, and produce a major “gaffe,” if Kennedy had stayed alive and in the race for the presidential nomination.

If the momentum continued to swing Kennedy’s way in the aftermath of Kennedy’s primary victory in California, and there is reason to believe the momentum had turned Kennedy’s way, Kennedy was going to win the New York primary on June 18, 1968. Again, with media attention focusing on the election as a “horse race” and openly discussing whether a candidate was “up” or “down” in the race to the nomination, and further, with Kennedy surrogates aggressively moving to secure the pledges of delegates around the country, there is also reason to believe that by the end of June 1968, Kennedy would likely be catching up to Humphrey—and McCarthy would be under great pressure to withdraw.

In Kennedy’s last campaign strategy session before he was shot, Kennedy had informed his staff he was now in a position to catch Humphrey in delegates and win the nomination. Kennedy told his staffers that he was going to meet with Daley and secure Daley’s support. He said if he secured Daley’s support, that would be “the ballgame.” Kennedy also said to his top staff that he was going to “chase Humphrey’s ass all over the country”, which meant he was ready to personally meet with delegates who had not pledged to any candidate, as well as those who had softly pledged to Humphrey.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top