1968 Election with a living JFK?

This is a reboot of this thread from last year - I don't think the discussion was entirely finished, and I'd like to see it continue.

Assuming John F. Kennedy is not assassinated and completes his second term, what does the election of 1968 look like? To avoid having to deal with the complications of an attempted assassination, the POD is simply Oswald either not being allowed back into the US or being arrested after attempting to assassinate General Edwin Walker. Of course, so much here depends on how JFK's second term goes, and it's a good topic for us to discuss in this kind of thread. I think it's more than safe to assume he will be re-elected - Goldwater is still the likely Republican nominee, and JFK is still popular.

On the subject of Vietnam - I know plenty will disagree, but I do not believe Kennedy would have escalated the situation. From what I can tell, Kennedy was skeptical of many of his advisers, and seemed hesitant to make the crucial step of committing combat troops. I expect he would have tried to seek a diplomatic settlement, and I don't think it's impossible he would have achieved it.

On Civil Rights, I think Kennedy would still have managed to pass crucial legislation. It would probably not have been as robust as OTL's CRA and VRA, and it would likely have taken several months longer to be passed, but I think there was enough pressure on the President and Congress to do something that I think it's safe to say it would have happened.

I doubt LBJ or Bobby Kennedy will be nominated in 1968 - Hubert Humphrey (or Eugene McCarthy?) seems more likely.

There is certainly an argument to be made that Nixon's comeback in 1968 is still likely, but I will mention an intriguing possibility mentioned in the earlier thread. Assuming the Republicans perform somewhat better in 1964, it is quite possible Charles Percy could be elected Governor of Illinois. He was a moderate, but on good terms with the conservatives - overall, he could be a good choice for the Republican nomination.
 
Last edited:
Given Kennedy didn't like Johnson very much, there's a decent chance he gets dropped from the ticket in 1964. And that's really it, so far as his Presidential aspirations go - a non-incumbent Southerner is not getting the top of the ticket at this point.

Eight years of Kennedy also means substantially weaker civil rights - so I'd say there is more room for someone like Humphrey to argue more needed to be done.
 

Deleted member 180541

Given Kennedy didn't like Johnson very much, there's a decent chance he gets dropped from the ticket in 1964. And that's really it, so far as his Presidential aspirations go - a non-incumbent Southerner is not getting the top of the ticket at this point.
Texas is far too important a state for JFK to risk alienating, he would of been kept on the ticket in 1964.
Reagan was regarded as a nutter in 1968. It Goldwater loses 1964, he's got no shot of the nomination.
Reagan nearly won the GOP nomination OTL so I don't see how he couldn't in this timeline. I contend that if Reagan was the nominee in the 1968 election he would of won as he would of swallowed up a large chunk of the Wallace voters. Goldwater would perform better in the 1964 election as the civil rights legislation would be far more diluted, meaning he could be semi-supportive of whatever is proposed in the civil rights bill in this timeline. He would still loose badly in the election as his proto-libertarian beliefs are unpopular in the industrial north, but the election would of been more competitive.
 
Texas is far too important a state for JFK to risk alienating, he would of been kept on the ticket in 1964.

Reagan nearly won the GOP nomination OTL so I don't see how he couldn't in this timeline. I contend that if Reagan was the nominee in the 1968 election he would of won as he would of swallowed up a large chunk of the Wallace voters. Goldwater would perform better in the 1964 election as the civil rights legislation would be far more diluted, meaning he could be semi-supportive of whatever is proposed in the civil rights bill in this timeline. He would still loose badly in the election as his proto-libertarian beliefs are unpopular in the industrial north, but the election would of been more competitive.
Winning Texas has to be balanced with considerations outside Texas - Kennedy would have (correctly) thought that he could bury Goldwater without Johnson (who did also have his share of scandals).

Reagan was nowhere near winning the Republican nomination in 1968 (he's popular in California, and that's it). Meanwhile a diluted civil rights bill just means that Goldwater has less appeal in the South (the Dixiecrats are less angry), the election gets fought on economics, social welfare, and foreign affairs, three areas where Goldwater was staggeringly unpopular. Running as Goldwater 2.0 would not be the path to victory four years later.

To get Reagan nominated, you either need the Nixonian moderates to be discredited (as in OTL), or he gets wheeled out as a sacrificial lamb in 1972 against a Democratic incumbent.
 
Goldwater would perform better in the 1964 election as the civil rights legislation would be far more diluted, meaning he could be semi-supportive of whatever is proposed in the civil rights bill in this timelin

He voted for the 1957 act, so you're probably right.
 
The problem with this thread is you have to fill in Nov 1963 to Nov 1968.

What happens there will determine the 1968 election.

Vietnam, Civil Rights, The Economy, The Space Race, etc. will all have an impact.

Not to mention JFK's health (which wasn't great) and his womanizing, which over 8 years has a greater chance of getting out. Also if people are shouting "Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids you kill today!" that is a problem for the Democrats.

Is the JFK of 1968 basking in the glow of a successful administration? Or is his second term marred by scandal and political failure?

While I think Kennedy would have probably won against Goldwater in 1964, it should be noted that the two IIRC were friends, and without the assassination sympathy boost to the Democrats, the 1964 campaign would have been very different.
 
The problem with this thread is you have to fill in Nov 1963 to Nov 1968.

What happens there will determine the 1968 election.

Vietnam, Civil Rights, The Economy, The Space Race, etc. will all have an impact.

Not to mention JFK's health (which wasn't great) and his womanizing, which over 8 years has a greater chance of getting out. Also if people are shouting "Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids you kill today!" that is a problem for the Democrats.

Is the JFK of 1968 basking in the glow of a successful administration? Or is his second term marred by scandal and political failure?

While I think Kennedy would have probably won against Goldwater in 1964, it should be noted that the two IIRC were friends, and without the assassination sympathy boost to the Democrats, the 1964 campaign would have been very different.
The media was averse to reporting on politicians' private lives in the 60s, so I doubt it would come out until after.
 

marktaha

Banned
Texas is far too important a state for JFK to risk alienating, he would of been kept on the ticket in 1964.

Reagan nearly won the GOP nomination OTL so I don't see how he couldn't in this timeline. I contend that if Reagan was the nominee in the 1968 election he would of won as he would of swallowed up a large chunk of the Wallace voters. Goldwater would perform better in the 1964 election as the civil rights legislation would be far more diluted, meaning he could be semi-supportive of whatever is proposed in the civil rights bill in this timeline. He would still loose badly in the election as his proto-libertarian beliefs are unpopular in the industrial north, but the election would of
Texas is far too important a state for JFK to risk alienating, he would of been kept on the ticket in 1964.

Reagan nearly won the GOP nomination OTL so I don't see how he couldn't in this timeline. I contend that if Reagan was the nominee in the 1968 election he would of won as he would of swallowed up a large chunk of the Wallace voters. Goldwater would perform better in the 1964 election as the civil rights legislation would be far more diluted, meaning he could be semi-supportive of whatever is proposed in the civil rights bill in this timeline. He would still loose badly in the election as his proto-libertarian beliefs are unpopular in the industrial north, but the election would of been more competitive.
The media was averse to reporting on politicians' private lives in the 60s, so I doubt it would come out until after.
Reagan came third at 1968 convention. My view -JFK beats Goldwater about 55-45 in 1964, Nixon beats Bobby (if not assassinated) 1968, Bobby wins in 1976.
 
I don't think Nixon's comeback is an absolute certainty ITTL - didn't it really begin IOTL with Kennedy's assassination? There's also the possibility of a Governor Chuck Percy being the nominee. I doubt Bobby will be the nominee in 1968.

@David T, what's your best guess on what the 1968 nominations will look like?
The problem with this thread is you have to fill in Nov 1963 to Nov 1968.

What happens there will determine the 1968 election.

Vietnam, Civil Rights, The Economy, The Space Race, etc. will all have an impact.

Not to mention JFK's health (which wasn't great) and his womanizing, which over 8 years has a greater chance of getting out. Also if people are shouting "Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids you kill today!" that is a problem for the Democrats.

Is the JFK of 1968 basking in the glow of a successful administration? Or is his second term marred by scandal and political failure?

While I think Kennedy would have probably won against Goldwater in 1964, it should be noted that the two IIRC were friends, and without the assassination sympathy boost to the Democrats, the 1964 campaign would have been very different.
I'm not so sure that JFK would have escalated in Vietnam, based on reading material like Virtual JFK.
 
God, the shitshow of a continued Kennedy PResidency. Draft and race riots, no civil rights bills. Given the situation you'd probably see Reagan or Goldwater either run well to the right of OTL or someone unknown in OTL 1968 running well to the right of either of those two and beating RFK or Wallace by a big margin.
 
God, the shitshow of a continued Kennedy PResidency. Draft and race riots, no civil rights bills. Given the situation you'd probably see Reagan or Goldwater either run well to the right of OTL or someone unknown in OTL 1968 running well to the right of either of those two and beating RFK or Wallace by a big margin.
What is it that makes you think JFK wouldn't have gotten the civil rights bills passed?
 
What is it that makes you think JFK wouldn't have gotten the civil rights bills passed?
LBJ actually sincerely cared about it and had the legislative skills to pull it off. Sure, JFK made pro-civil rights noises and would obviously enforce pro-integration court rulings but I really don't see him bothering at all to push it, or even putting much effort into advancing it.
 

marktaha

Banned
What is it that makes you think JFK wouldn't have gotten the civil rights bills passed?
He'd have had a tougher time than LBJ but Voting Rights at least was unstoppable.
68 - Jack campaigning for Bobby less US troops in Vietnam so less controversy.
Anyone ever done a timeline with Jack, Bobby and Teddy each doing their eight years in turn?
 
REALLY don't buy the "JFK wouldn't have escalated more than LBJ in vietnam" talk. The man ran as a hawk in 1960. The million-man mobilization that Sam R.'s talked about in extended vietnam atls seems like it'd be JFK's response to an atl *tet offensive, or even done just to shore up vietnam to try and fail to get reelected.
 
Someone already mentioned Charles Percy but what about Jim Rhodes? He seems to be always forgotten about he could easily take the Nixon middle-of-the-road approach and he has more experience than Charles Percy at this point he also isn't as gaffe-prone as Romney.
 

Deleted member 145219

While Kennedy would likely have a successful Presidency, it's not going to be Camelot. He likely still gets the Tax Cut, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Immigration, and the Economic Opportunity Act. Just not as quickly as LBJ in OTL. Look for a much smaller "War on Poverty," if it's even called that. JFK will likely have spent his domestic political capital on the big ticket items. He seeks to deescalate Cold War tensions, to the chagrin of the foreign policy establishment. Vietnam is a coin toss between quietly pulling out in 1965, or his hand being forced in 1965. If he escalates, it's a smaller, more methodical escalation that keeps the US presence limited in Indochina.

And regardless of how well he does, his popularity won't be transferable to the Democrats for a third Presidential victory. Whispers of Kennedy's personal life are just that, whispers. With or without an escalation in Vietnam, there will still be a surge of student activism that will rub a lot of older, Socially Conservative voters the wrong way. A GOP victory is likely in 1968. RFK probably retires from public life after Jack's second term. If any of Jack's baggage comes out after his Presidency, what RFK knew and any role he played in keeping it quiet comes into scrutiny. Ted likely remains in the Senate.

Big question is Vietnam.

With Nam: Nixon's the One
No Nam: Romney
 
While Kennedy would likely have a successful Presidency, it's not going to be Camelot. He likely still gets the Tax Cut, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Immigration, and the Economic Opportunity Act. Just not as quickly as LBJ in OTL. Look for a much smaller "War on Poverty," if it's even called that. JFK will likely have spent his domestic political capital on the big ticket items. He seeks to deescalate Cold War tensions, to the chagrin of the foreign policy establishment. Vietnam is a coin toss between quietly pulling out in 1965, or his hand being forced in 1965. If he escalates, it's a smaller, more methodical escalation that keeps the US presence limited in Indochina.

And regardless of how well he does, his popularity won't be transferable to the Democrats for a third Presidential victory. Whispers of Kennedy's personal life are just that, whispers. With or without an escalation in Vietnam, there will still be a surge of student activism that will rub a lot of older, Socially Conservative voters the wrong way. A GOP victory is likely in 1968. RFK probably retires from public life after Jack's second term. If any of Jack's baggage comes out after his Presidency, what RFK knew and any role he played in keeping it quiet comes into scrutiny. Ted likely remains in the Senate.

Big question is Vietnam.

With Nam: Nixon's the One
No Nam: Romney
Virtual JFK's suggestion of "Americanization Lite," where the US only escalates a little bit, only committing to holding certain key centers in South Vietnam. Of course, this has its own risks, but at least demonstrates it was not as simple as "Withdrawal vs. OTL War." I'm still thinking JFK will do everything he can to avoid letting things get that far, and focus on reaching a diplomatic solution.

Romney seems to be a little too gaffe-prone, and he needs to win over the conservative wing.
 
Top