You should've given Goldwater a go against Kennedy, that would've been very cool to see.
I actually have two versions of this timeline in my notes - version a) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Goldwater, and version b) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Rockefeller.You should've given Goldwater a go against Kennedy, that would've been very cool to see.
You probably know that Goldwater and JFK were close friends, notwithstanding their diametric political opposition, and at one point at least semi-seriously discussed barnstorming the country together in 1964, holding debates on the spot wherever they went. Kennedy once famously inscribed a photograph of himself that Goldwater (a highly skilled lensman) had taken, "To my friend Barry Goldwater, whom I urge to follow the career for which he has shown so much talent...photography."I actually have two versions of this timeline in my notes - version a) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Goldwater, and version b) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Rockefeller.
That's not to say that Rockefeller is a sure thing - far from it. He's still not popular with many conservatives and the divorce hangs over his head.
Noted.Two major points....One, Rockefeller was never on the path to winning the Republican nomination. Goldwaterites had essentially overrun the Caucuses that year that nominated the overwhelming majority of the delegates to the Republican Convention, and carrying California is not going to change any of their minds in terms of who they are supporting. Even among favorite sons, there was serious dissension against Rockefeller amongst those delegates that represented the South (virtually nill support), Midwest and Prairie West that would have kept him from attaining the necessary support to cross the threshold.Edit: To be clear I thought that Rockefeller was presented as a.... clear favorite in the narrative. I still don't see a path for Rockefeller's nomination though.
Hm, I'll look into that (happy to be provided resources if you've got them handy) and take a few days to reassess some things and edit the previous update to reflect this information.Two, George Wallace never intended to start a Third Party when he was considering his Independent run in '64. Wallace and his cohorts intended to co-opt the Unpledged Electors movement that was gaining steam at the time, essentially a repeat of the Thurmond Campaign of '48. As an example, in '68 there were plenty of folks who tried to take out papers to run as American Independent candidates for various offices across the country, but Wallace himself made it abundantly clear that this should not be done and actively dissuaded as many as he could from doing so. His aims have always been within the Democratic Party, and it would amount to shooting himself in the foot to bolt considering he was at the time the political boss of the Democratic Party in Alabama. A Wallace-lead Conservative Third Party was simply never considered.
Hm, I'll look into that (happy to be provided resources if you've got them handy) and take a few days to reassess some things and edit the previous update to reflect this information.
Thanks for the information.