Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket in 1968?

[David T]

Former Massachusetts governor Endicott Peabody, a summer neighbor of Nelson Rockefeller's (and a staunch Democrat) tried to draft Rocky as VP on Humphrey's ticket in 1968, calling on Rocky to take part in a grand alliance of Humphrey, Kennedy, McCarthy, Rockefeller and Romney supporters to prevent the victory of "a leadership outright opposed to your policies." "Humphrey himself called to make the case for a coalition government." Richard Norton Smith, *On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller*, p. 540. See also Marianne Means' column of September 4, 1968: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...8cfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4589,6345352

Yes, it may seem unlikely that Rockefeller accepts, but after 1964 and 1968, maybe he concludes that he just has no future in the national GOP and that he is closer philosophically to Humphrey? Anyway, while normally "nobody votes for the veep", http://www.slate.com/…/20…/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html could it be different this time, given the closeness of the election and the possibility that Rocky's presence on the ticket could appeal to some moderate-to-liberal Republicans (and moderate independents) who may have been reluctant Nixon voters in OTL?

 

[THE OBSERVER]

That should interest LBJ, since he wanted Rockefeller to run.

 

[GeographyDude]

This tips it. Humphrey wins what had been a very close election.

And with Wallace splitting the conservative vote. This aspect might not be noticed at first, but the conservative block won't always be split.

PS I think these old newspapers, and the easy google access to at least some of them, are a rich source of information and possibilities.

 

[Realpolitik]

That could work(although maybe not-don't forget that the electoral vote is different from the popular one), except for one thing. Rockefeller was not interested in being VP, at all. I don't see him subordinating himself to Humphrey.


The only reason he agreed in 1976 was due to the state of the party at the time.

 

[SlideAway]

Former Massachusetts governor Endicott Peabody, a summer neighbor of Nelson Rockefeller's (and a staunch Democrat) tried to draft Rocky as VP on Humphrey's ticket in 1968, calling on Rocky to take part in a grand alliance of Humphrey, Kennedy, McCarthy, Rockefeller and Romney supporters to prevent the victory of "a leadership outright opposed to your policies." "Humphrey himself called to make the case for a coalition government." Richard Norton Smith, *On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller*, p. 540. See also Marianne Means' column of September 4, 1968: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...8cfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4589,6345352

Yes, it may seem unlikely that Rockefeller accepts, but after 1964 and 1968, maybe he concludes that he just has no future in the national GOP and that he is closer philosophically to Humphrey? Anyway, while normally "nobody votes for the veep", http://www.slate.com/…/20…/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html could it be different this time, given the closeness of the election and the possibility that Rocky's presence on the ticket could appeal to some moderate-to-liberal Republicans (and moderate independents) who may have been reluctant Nixon voters in OTL?

I think the main problem is that Rocky hadn't yet accepted that he couldn't win the GOP nomination. He until fairly late in the game still seemed like a viable option for the GOP nod and TBH in spite of his handicaps, had he jumped in from the start rather than first endorse George Romney he might have actually been able to win.

Still, if he decides earlier that he has no hope for the GOP nod, maybe he could be persuaded and I think in that case Humphrey might win.

 

[asgasgadgag]

This tips it. Humphrey wins what had been a very close election.

And with Wallace splitting the conservative vote. This aspect might not be noticed at first, but the conservative block won't always be split.

PS I think these old newspapers, and the easy google access to at least some of them, are a rich source of information and possibilities.

Not sure what Rocky's record on labor relations were but it's possible that some blue collar Democrats OTL who were thinking about voting for Wallace but tipped back to Humphrey thanks to an AFL-CIO sponsored campaign attacking him for Alabama's being a "right-to-work" state could ITTL end up going for Wallace if you have a blue blood on the Democratic ticket. So it could go either way. Also New York went Democratic anyway so I don't see what Rockefeller adds to the ticket geographically.

 

[David T]

Not sure what Rocky's record on labor relations were but it's possible that some blue collar Democrats OTL who were thinking about voting for Wallace but tipped back to Humphrey thanks to an AFL-CIO sponsored campaign attacking him for Alabama's being a "right-to-work" state could ITTL end up going for Wallace if you have a blue blood on the Democratic ticket. So it could go either way. Also New York went Democratic anyway so I don't see what Rockefeller adds to the ticket geographically.

Rockefeller got along *very* well with the unions (especially the construction workers in New York, who loved his huge building programs, like the much-criticized Mall in Albany). As for what states he could add, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio--close Nixon states in OTL--had plenty of moderate Republicans and independents who might be attracted to him. With those states, Humphrey could win, even without California which I think could be in play--after all, Rockefeller *almost* beat Goldwater in the 1964 GOP primary there, despite the disastrous timing of Happy giving birth the weekend before the primary. And Robert Finch outpolled Reagan there in 1966. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...zo0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=d-sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2168,2023851 Also, that Cranston defeated Rafferty in the US Senate race there shows that there were a considerable number of independents winnable by the Democrats in 1968.

And anyway, as Humphrey once said when asked about a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket, well, at least it would be *solvent*...

 

[Plumber]

I don't think this is a realistic option unless Reagan wins the nomination. However, that's not that difficult: Reagan was probably just a little farther off from winning the '68 nomination than he was from winning the '76 nomination. Nixon won the first ballot by a slimmer margin than Goldwater did in '64. Had he lost the first ballot, a lot of Nixon delegates that Strom Thurmond was holding for him would have bolted to Reagan. Both Rockefeller and Reagan were counting on this to ensure that they won the nomination, but the '68 delegate makeup was highly influenced by Goldwater's 64 run and so Reagan has a much higher chance to triumph. Rockefeller's organization didn't seem to realize this at the time, and even if they did, he was stubborn enough to go for it. When it becomes clear that Reagan is in the lead, Rockefeller will probably be offered the VP slot by both Nixon and Humphrey. I can see him rejecting Nixon's offer out of pride and stubbornness. By the time the DNC has rolled around, Rockefeller could be frightened enough by the possibility of a Reagan presidency (The World Is Watching, and Humphrey's Numbers Are Plummeting) that he accepts Humphrey's offer to become VP.

 

[Stolengood]

So, if Reagan wins the nomination, what does Nixon do? Stew in his own juices until the next election? And who becomes Reagan's running mate, since Nixon certainly wouldn't want to suborn himself to a man he despised?

 

[Plumber]

So, if Reagan wins the nomination, what does Nixon do? Stew in his own juices until the next election? And who becomes Reagan's running mate, since Nixon certainly wouldn't want to suborn himself to a man he despised?

Nixon would probably try to get a Secretary of State promise in return for campaigning for Reagan. Secretly he would hope that Reagan loses, of course. Maybe he pushes Reagan to accept his personal VP choice: Agnew Reagan would have to choose a liberal, but Agnew was basically all things to all people at that point (that's not why he was chosen. Nixon was the only one to mention Agnew and had developed a feeling that the two were connected. He was quickly disabused of that once Agnew was in office.) Interestingly, Edward Brooke was mentioned as a possibility at the time by the Reagan people to dispel the Goldwater air. That would be very interesting. Of course, had Reagan announced such a thing in advance like he did in '76, then Nixon could very well make a comeback and take the nomination...

 

[Realpolitik]

I don't think this is a realistic option unless Reagan wins the nomination. However, that's not that difficult: Reagan was probably just a little farther off from winning the '68 nomination than he was from winning the '76 nomination. Nixon won the first ballot by a slimmer margin than Goldwater did in '64. Had he lost the first ballot, a lot of Nixon delegates that Strom Thurmond was holding for him would have bolted to Reagan. Both Rockefeller and Reagan were counting on this to ensure that they won the nomination, but the '68 delegate makeup was highly influenced by Goldwater's 64 run and so Reagan has a much higher chance to triumph. Rockefeller's organization didn't seem to realize this at the time, and even if they did, he was stubborn enough to go for it. When it becomes clear that Reagan is in the lead, Rockefeller will probably be offered the VP slot by both Nixon and Humphrey. I can see him rejecting Nixon's offer out of pride and stubbornness. By the time the DNC has rolled around, Rockefeller could be frightened enough by the possibility of a Reagan presidency (The World Is Watching, and Humphrey's Numbers Are Plummeting) that he accepts Humphrey's offer to become VP.

I disagree. I'm not sure a 1968 world was quite ready for Reagan(and given the Sino-Soviet split, I'm glad not to try). America was still a very New Deal based place, and his political skills weren't as honed yet. Reaganite escalation in Vietnam was out of the question and increasingly unpopular. The GOP wasn't as full of morons then than now, and they care about who can get into the White House first, who rolls back the federal government second.

If Reagan somehow gets the nomination, and I doubt he will, he will lose to Humphrey decisively.

Nixon would probably try to get a Secretary of State promise in return for campaigning for Reagan. Secretly he would hope that Reagan loses, of course. Maybe he pushes Reagan to accept his personal VP choice: Agnew Reagan would have to choose a liberal, but Agnew was basically all things to all people at that point (that's not why he was chosen. Nixon was the only one to mention Agnew and had developed a feeling that the two were connected. He was quickly disabused of that once Agnew was in office.) Interestingly, Edward Brooke was mentioned as a possibility at the time by the Reagan people to dispel the Goldwater air. That would be very interesting. Of course, had Reagan announced such a thing in advance like he did in '76, then Nixon could very well make a comeback and take the nomination...

If Nixon loses in 1968, he's done. Cooked. Simple as that.

 

[Realpolitik]

So, if Reagan wins the nomination, what does Nixon do? Stew in his own juices until the next election? And who becomes Reagan's running mate, since Nixon certainly wouldn't want to suborn himself to a man he despised?

Reagan will need to pick a relatively liberal type, maybe Northeast, but Rocky won't bite. Maybe Volpe or Brooke?

Nixon is CERTAINLY not going to be his running mate or his SecState or whatever(unless Reagan can promise that he can do whatever he wants in foreign policy, and that's not going to happen). No way he will accept anything less than Prezzie, least of all to the likes of Ronald Reagan. Too many people would have perceived it as the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Stolengood]

I can see talks with the Nixon-favored choices breaking down over Nixon and Reagan's shared hard-headedness, and Reagan picking Brooke. Unfortunately, that might sour tickets on black running mates for at least a generation.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Would Wallace run against Reagan?

 

[Derek Jackson]

How about as 3rd party unity

Needs several PODS, Goldwater denied nomination and inefective inoffensive compromise loses 64,

Progressives in Democrats MUCH better organized than in otl.

McGovern/ Bobby Ticket running against Goldwater Reagan ticket

demand for moderates and they get this unity ticket on the ballot.

I do not know the outcome of such an election