1968 election without the Vietnam War

CaliGuy

Banned
How would the 1968 U.S. Presidential election have turned out without the Vietnam War (as in, had LBJ decided not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1964-1965)?
 
LBJ runs in 1968 and IMHO has no primary challenger. However, due to southern resentment against the Democrats over Civil Rights, the GOP narrowly wins the election.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
LBJ runs in 1968 and IMHO has no primary challenger. However, due to southern resentment against the Democrats over Civil Rights, the GOP narrowly wins the election.
Couldn't some Southern Whites have voted for LBJ due to economic issues, though? After all, LBJ did win a large part of the Southern White vote in 1964, no?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, please keep in mind that the economy was still in good shape in 1968; indeed, that should help LBJ get some additional votes that year.
 
Couldn't some Southern Whites have voted for LBJ due to economic issues, though? After all, LBJ did win a large part of the Southern White vote in 1964, no?
Wallace might still run though, and that'll kill LBJ in the south.
 
Here's my take in a nutshell: You will have the issues, the social dynamics, the resentments and backlash and all in the 1960s. Without Vietnam, it would not be turned up to 11. It would be more of a 5. "Flower Power", but not "by any means necessary" militancy. Less drastic, angry action as a result of not having a war in Vietnam and everything that means results in less drastic, angry reaction. Vietnam was like throwing gasoline on a fire. It was the total opposite of everything the Baby Boomers as an entity believed in, whether that be peace, dedication to humanity, and prosperity, or whether it be that America inherently does the right things. It forced America to look in the darkness until it looked back, and to question itself and turn in on itself to the point where the psychology broke. The 1970s were the aftermath of a nervous breakdown.
 
LBJ doesn't need the Deep South to win, though.
True, but a moderate Republican can easily win the northern states that he does need to win. Keep in mind, the mountain west, as it is today, was Republican at the time and so were the Northeast and the West Coast at the time. The only reliable region of the Country the Democrats had at the time was the south. The Rust Belt was up for grabs by both parties.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
True, but a moderate Republican can easily win the northern states that he does need to win. Keep in mind, the mountain west, as it is today, was Republican at the time and so were the Northeast and the West Coast at the time. The only reliable region of the Country the Democrats had at the time was the south. The Rust Belt was up for grabs by both parties.
Why would moderate voters in the Midwest abandon LBJ in 1968 in this TL, though? After all, the U.S. economy was still in good shape during this time and Midwesterners weren't hostile to Black rights like many Southerners were.
 
The GOP comes close and Wallace may take the South but with the liberal base still behind LBJ and LBJ still popular the Democrats would still win. Given how close 1968 IOTL was even with the disasters that the Democrats faced a popular LBJ would likely beat Nixon fairly comfortably, or some other Republican(Reagan? Rockefeller? Romney?) if Nixon did not run in a less favorable year.
 
The GOP comes close and Wallace may take the South but with the liberal base still behind LBJ and LBJ still popular the Democrats would still win. Given how close 1968 IOTL was even with the disasters that the Democrats faced a popular LBJ would likely beat Nixon fairly comfortably, or some other Republican(Reagan? Rockefeller? Romney?) if Nixon did not run in a less favorable year.
'68 would've been a landslide for Nixon had Wallace not run. There was no way the deep south was voting for Humphrey, the man who made Civil Rights apart of the Democratic platform in 1948. The Democrats would have a very good chance in this TL, but I think the GOP would still win. Wallace also had appeal to northern blue collar voters to.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
'68 would've been a landslide for Nixon had Wallace not run. There was no way the deep south was voting for Humphrey, the man who made Civil Rights apart of the Democratic platform in 1948. The Democrats would have a very good chance in this TL, but I think the GOP would still win. Wallace also had appeal to northern blue collar voters to.
Couldn't some of Wallace's voters--especially in the North--have preferred LBJ/Humphrey to Nixon due to economic issues, though?
 
'68 would've been a landslide for Nixon had Wallace not run. There was no way the deep south was voting for Humphrey, the man who made Civil Rights apart of the Democratic platform in 1948. The Democrats would have a very good chance in this TL, but I think the GOP would still win. Wallace also had appeal to northern blue collar voters to.

Why would Wallace not run TTL though? Also, Wallace may have taken votes from Humphrey in the North where union voters who would not vote Republican voted for him due to his stance on racial issues. The Democrats were the dominant party at the time and even with Vietnam and the resulting political disasters they faced they barely lost. A popular LBJ with no Vietnam would almost certainly win, though by a reduced margin from 1964.
 
Couldn't some of Wallace's voters--especially in the North--have preferred LBJ/Humphrey to Nixon due to economic issues, though?
I honestly think Nixon would sit it out in this scenario. My guess is Rockefeller or Romney would get it.
 
Also, with regards to the economy, inflation started to rise at the end of LBJ's term and there was bound to be some backlash against the Dems in the North over Civil Rights. I guess I'll concede that LBJ would be favored to win, but it would be no guarantee either.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, with regards to the economy, inflation started to rise at the end of LBJ's term

Yes, but just how much attention did people pay to this in 1968?

and there was bound to be some backlash against the Dems in the North over Civil Rights. I guess I'll concede that LBJ would be favored to win, but it would be no guarantee either.

There might have been some backlash against the Democrats in the North over civil rights; however, even some anti-civil rights voters in the North might have been willing to vote for the Democrats due to economic issues. Plus, I doubt that the backlash would have been that severe considering that LBJ decisively won the North in 1964 (after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law); also, a liberal Republican opponent of LBJ's would have also been pro-civil rights and thus possibly not be very capable of capitalizing on any anti-civil rights backlash.
 
Yes, but just how much attention did people pay to this in 1968?



There might have been some backlash against the Democrats in the North over civil rights; however, even some anti-civil rights voters in the North might have been willing to vote for the Democrats due to economic issues. Plus, I doubt that the backlash would have been that severe considering that LBJ decisively won the North in 1964 (after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law); also, a liberal Republican opponent of LBJ's would have also been pro-civil rights and thus possibly not be very capable of capitalizing on any anti-civil rights backlash.
They may not be able to capitalize on it, but they may not get out and vote either. Also, with regards to 1964, that election had just as much to do with JFK's assassination and Goldwater being the second worst GOP nominee of the post war era (the first being Dewey in 48 for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).
 
If Wallace runs, he will lose ground to Johnson on so many issues where Johnson can reach into his base. He'll be running on cultural conservatism when in reality, things will not be felt to be so out of control compared to the actual 1968, when there is not the same backlash as the actual 1968, and it will very much feel like simply a segregationist platform. In the long term, it would more be a springboard to make inroads for the nomination of the Democratic party in 1972. It was already such in the actual 1968.
 
Top