1968 election without the Vietnam War

Would Nixon still run? Would he still be the nominee? Or would another Republican be nominated?

Nixon's run is something that is fickle, because Nixon lead so many political lives. Jeffrey Frank feels that Nixon legitimately had no intention of running after losing the race for California governor in 1962. He would have been an elder Republican statesman, would have given speeches, but would do no more. And it was the Kennedy assassination that began his consideration for running again for the presidency. He very well could run in this 1968. Were he not to, I no longer feel it would be Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller had imploded in 1964 as a result of his divorce, offsetting internal Republican fighting that paved the way for Goldwater. He was the arch Eastern Establishment Republican, and it rubbed many Republican voters the wrong way. In this alternate landscape, he many have a greater chance than in the actual 1968. However, it very well may be Ronald Reagan, who had managed to convince more moderate Republicans such as former president Eisenhower that he was acceptable. Or it could even be someone like George Romney, if he managed to avoid being so gaffe prone. That is an impossibility, but he could perhaps avoid saying something crippling, and would therefore be a more acceptable iteration of someone like Nelson Rockefeller.
 
1968 US presidential election
genusmap.php

President Lyndon B Johnson/Hubert H Humphrey-Democratic: 342 EV 45.47%
George Romney/George Bush-Republican: 132 EV 39.07%
George Wallace/Happy Chandler-American Independent: 64 EV 15.03%
 
1968 US presidential election
genusmap.php

President Lyndon B Johnson/Hubert H Humphrey-Democratic: 342 EV 45.47%
George Romney/George Bush-Republican: 132 EV 39.07%
George Wallace/Happy Chandler-American Independent: 64 EV 15.03%
I think Johnson would be able to pick up at least Tennessee and possibly Virginia and North Carolina, though I broadly agree with the above scenario.
 
If Romney is the nominee in 68 and loses the general, who do the GOP nominate for the next election, which they're now quite likely to win? If Rockefeller and Reagan were the other chief competitors in the 68 primaries, is one of them now the front runner for 72?
 
If Romney is the nominee in 68 and loses the general, who do the GOP nominate for the next election, which they're now quite likely to win? If Rockefeller and Reagan were the other chief competitors in the 68 primaries, is one of them now the front runner for 72?
I'd lean towards Reagan if moderate Romney loses in 1968, so long as he mellows his message a bit.
 
Several points.

First, Johnson's health was seriously bad in 1968, as it was he barely lasted past Nixon's first turn, and he know it. I think he had no intention of running but pretended to to avoid being seen as a lame duck.

Second, why there is no Vietnam War in 1968 is important, given that there were US "advisors" fighting there when JFK was President. What is the POD? Are Diem and/ or Kennedy still assassinated? Is there a settlement leading to free elections in the South (not the North) and reunification? Does Johnson, assuming Kennedy is assassinated on schedule, simply not escalate? No Gulf of Tonkin? The US just cuts and runs? If the US withdraws, does the Republic of Vietnam survive and if so, how long? Or does the US go all out, invades North Vietnam, and win? The POD really should be more specific. Any of these leads to a different situation in 1968.

Third, the US military-industrial complex pretty much wanted the war. How is that handled? Do they get another war somewhere else?

Fourth, it wasn't just that the war was making people upset. Trying to have "guns and butter" undercut the increased federal spending Johnson advocated and fostered inflation. It had an effect on the economy.
 
Johnson's health deteriorated as a result of the pressures and stress of the Vietnam War and the ensuing social chaos. As soon as he left office, literally on the helicopter out of Washington, he began smoking and drinking heavily again, which resulted in his death in 1973.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Does Johnson, assuming Kennedy is assassinated on schedule, simply not escalate? No Gulf of Tonkin? The US just cuts and runs?

Yes, all of this is correct.

If the US withdraws, does the Republic of Vietnam survive and if so, how long?

It survives for several years at the very most.

Or does the US go all out, invades North Vietnam, and win? The POD really should be more specific. Any of these leads to a different situation in 1968.

Wouldn't a U.S. invasion of North Vietnam fail just like it failed in North Korea in 1950, though?

Third, the US military-industrial complex pretty much wanted the war. How is that handled? Do they get another war somewhere else?

No, they don't; rather, LBJ tells them to stop whining and to deal with his decision not to go to war.

Fourth, it wasn't just that the war was making people upset. Trying to have "guns and butter" undercut the increased federal spending Johnson advocated and fostered inflation. It had an effect on the economy.

No war = less guns, no?
 
It survives for several years at the very most.

It depends on the internal politics of Hanoi. Moscow and Beijing were perfectly fine with a negotiated peace and the survival of South Vietnam. A faction in Hanoi, of which Ho Chi Minh was part, was also open to this. The faction lead by General Giap was not, and pressured for the continuation of the war despite losses.


Wouldn't a U.S. invasion of North Vietnam fail just like it failed in North Korea in 1950, though?

The fear of doing precisely that was bringing China into the conflict directly, and the potential for WW3.


No, they don't; rather, LBJ tells them to stop whining and to deal with his decision not to go to war.

There is not a conspiratorial military-industrial complex. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume something active where it is something passive. There is a passive interrelationship between the economy and the industry, which did pressure for things like military build up as a business. However, there were not men in smoke filled rooms plotting for involvement in Vietnam for profit.

No war = less guns, no?

Vietnam being averted would help the American economy avoid the financial woes of the 1970s, which lead to the period of malaise and lead to the Reagan era of neoliberalism. The economy will go through natural cycles of recession and progress, but Vietnam really had problematic effects on the American economy, which again undercuts the idea of war purely for profit.
 
Were Nixon to run, I do wonder how he would negotiate the George Wallace issue. Wallace will be cutting into his potential pool of voters in regards to Southerners and those in those in the working class who would be unhappy with Johnson just based on what there is without Vietnam. Again, a 5 instead of an 11, but there would still be those people out there who hate hippies and civil rights progress. That in addition to the traditional Republican voter who is for a balanced budget, against what they would feel are excesses in government spending and government programs, and are traditionally White Collar workers. Nixon would have those people, but not necessarily Democrats who may feel left out or dissatisfied.

In 1964, Wallace decided not to run because of Goldwater representing what he planned to run as. Were it another Republican, he would have run in 1964 (there's another scenario for you all). It is possible for that to be the case in 1968, depending on how Nixon would position himself. However, it is a strong possibility that Wallace was simply trying to position himself for the nomination of the party in 1972, meaning he runs regardless. Bear in mind, Nixon is not necessarily going to have a Southern strategy here. He could run very differently. The events of this scenario would already mean "law and order" would not be as strong of a platform if long haired youth are only protesting for civil rights and not against an American war at a time when the older generation felt you did not question your government. There is the potential that Nixon could do his damndest to decimate Wallace with every trick he had, clearing him out of the way and allowing Nixon to tap into the base he had. Or he could try to oversee a conflict for the heart of the Democratic party between Wallace and Johnson, dividing their votes, and paving his way as the reasonable alternative.

However, it will not necessarily be the case that Nixon would run in this version of 1968. He was positioning himself for the run since 1964, but it is not certain he would go ahead with it should he feel he would have trouble against Johnson. It is a matter of ambition against fear of embarrassment, and which would win out.
 
I'd lean towards Reagan if moderate Romney loses in 1968, so long as he mellows his message a bit.
This raises an intersting question in itself -- namely, without Vietnam but with four more years of Liberal Democratic governance, do the Republican Party (and the US as a whole) swing to the right earlier? Put another way, what if Reagan doesn't mellow out his message?

(I will note that even if the Gipper doesn't move to the center, his 1972 policies will still be notably different from his 1980 ones.)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This raises an intersting question in itself -- namely, without Vietnam but with four more years of Liberal Democratic governance, do the Republican Party (and the US as a whole) swing to the right earlier? Put another way, what if Reagan doesn't mellow out his message?

(I will note that even if the Gipper doesn't move to the center, his 1972 policies will still be notably different from his 1980 ones.)
Would there be such a severe reaction to liberalism without Vietnam, though?
 

RousseauX

Donor
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)?
Democrats win even with Vietnam and 1968 dem convention riots and rfk getting shot Nixon's victory is a margin of 0.7% in the popular vote
 
Would there be such a severe reaction to liberalism without Vietnam, though?
That's my question. If there isn't, then the Republicans are pretty unlikely to nominate Reagan in 1968 or 72; that means a 68 Romney nomination would be followed by Rocky finally securing the nod the following cycle, likely meaning a Liberal Republican 1970's.
 
Top