A few things. Firstly, you delay "Black Flight" from the GOP to the Democrats following a reaction to the Conservative Goldwater who opposed Civil Rights legislation of the day (the Democrats already had a solid Black base due to the New Deal era, but Goldwater alienated the GOP's solid black base into joining the Democrats). Secondly, it depends on the events to follow 1964. If it involves the same disillusion with Johnson, the establishment, and the war, Goldwater could exploit it to some degree, but I think he'd be seen as old hat and too Conservative regardless, with a Libertarian anti-government image conflicting with the image of the sort of missile-lobbing Goldwater of a Johnson campaign film.What if Barry Goldwater had waited 1968 for his candidature to President of United States?
And it was seen as being just a niche and just as limited and just as radical and extreme, although I'd say the "Teabaggers" are worse or seen as worse on all of those than the Conservative Faction. The Conservative Faction may have been limited to a region (the west) but the Tea folks don't make up much of a percent of the population overall.He didn't want to. In 1960-4, there was a backlash similar to the current Tea Party movement.
I disagree rather much on this point. The fact of the matter was there wasn't much discontent with the order of the day as shown by the fact that Goldwater and the Conservatives were seen as some sort of radical group and were rejected with the ballot come 1964. Liberalism was the mainstream ideology. It took about a decade and a half of disillusion, shattered hope with Nixon and to a degree Carter, and further disillusion before the Conservatives, by what was really a stroke of historical coincidences to create the scenario, could win in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. And even then it wasn't for Reagan and Conservatism, but against Carter. I don't think the return of the Conservatives following the Depression era/Roosevelt era was destined to occur.A centrist Democrat in the White House, the GOP having been run by liberal and centrist Republicans since the FDR era such as Tom Dewey, Rocky, Ike and Nixon, and they thought a conservative Republican would defeat a New Dealer like Lyndon Johnson. That assumption was correct, but not Barry Goldwater. As one observant aide to California Gov. Pat Brown said, "Reagan represents Goldwater's ideas without Goldwater's handicaps."
Take note that the Goldwaterites really supported Nixon on a false assumption. That being that his anti-Communist rhetoric equated with anti-government rhetoric, and that his "New Federalism" was more than it really was in limiting government.He was a symbol, and once said privately "I don't think I have the brains to be President". Also on decent terms with JFK. After the '64 election, Goldwater and his team transferred their loyalty to Nixon. Then Nixon became the effective leader of the Republican Party, with the Democratic Civil War erupting into open conflict by early 1967.
And I agree. What I'm saying is the Western Conservatives supported Nixon on the false assumption that his rhetoric represented their ideology, even though he was simply speaking against Communism on one hand and for decentralizing but maintaining the bureaucracy on another, and even though (more glaringly) he was perhaps the last Liberal President in the long run."New Federalism"- the same idea pushed by the Southern Antichrist(though not until 1966). Besides being delicious irony, the fact was that decentralization to state or local control is not the same as privatization like Goldwater advocated. It shrinks the federal government, but the bureaucracies still exist, although they are no longer in Washington. So you have your cake and eat it too. How Nixonian.
![]()
What if Barry Goldwater had waited 1968 for his candidature to President of United States?
RogueBeaver said:In 1960-4, there was a backlash similar to the current Tea Party movement
Emperor Norton I said:Take note that the Goldwaterites really supported Nixon on a false assumption. That being that his anti-Communist rhetoric equated with anti-government rhetoric, and that his "New Federalism" was more than it really was in limiting government.
But what about the war?What we now have is (a.) A probable Rockefeller or even Nixon defeat against LBJ in '64, and (b.) A likely re-elected Senator Goldwater who finds that the times suit him very nicely in Johnson's second term, what with the white disgust surrounding urban riots and the emerging anti-war movement.
So in 68 or Goldwater or was for the "Vietnamization" or was a sure loser.Not a pro-escalation candidate. All three leading candidates IOTL, Nixon, Kennedy (ambiguously) and Humphrey, promoted "Vietnamization" with the eventual goal of peace talks.
louge60 said:But what about the war?
In 1968 Electors can vote a candidate pro-war?
RogueBeaver said:Well, then Goldwater would have to face Hubert or Bobby (butterflies would likely take care of Sirhan) in the general election. If the Dems nominate Bobby, they can have he, their logistical guru, substitute his own highly effective GOTV and fundraising operations for the atrophied DNC's. If they nominate Hubert, Barry can say "LBJ's second term", and the Dems would have no campaign organization worth mentioning as happened IOTL. Humphrey only aired ads periodically because there was no money to pay for them.
Hubert won Texas because LBJ and Connally wanted Hubert to win it and adjusted their GOTV ops accordingly. Remember, Rocky was LBJ's first choice as a successor, not Hubert.
RogueBeaver said:Against Goldwater, centrist Dems would stay with their party
Here is how I think a Goldwater v. Humphrey battle would go down, with essentially the same Sociopolitical events happening in '68 as they did IOTL
![]()
Barry Goldwater/William P. Scranton: 277 Electoral Votes
Hubert Humphrey/Ralph Yarborough: 261 Electoral Votes