AH Challenge: Bobby Kennedy survives but still loses to Nixon..

You think Strom didn't believe he could get ABM and an increased Pentagon budget out of Ronald Reagan?* Not even as part of the traditional wrangling at the party convention?

Oh I imagine he could have…*but Nixon talked to him first, and at the time Reagan was staying out of the matter. Once Strom gave his word to Nixon that was that.

It wasn't a matter of finding the best deal for Strom, it was a matter of finding an acceptable deal. If Reagan had talked to him earlier he probably would have backed Reagan. But once he was on board with Nixon, that was that.

Additionally, post-Goldwater, Strom was worried that Reagan simply couldn't win the election. That was more or less acceptable to Southern delegates (they cared more about nominating the right man than winning, which is a key reason they'd abandon Nixon after the first ballot or if Strom wasn't the guy supporting Nixon), and somewhat worried the Northern delegates.

However Reagan would have the South plus California (and probably more) on the second ballot, which puts paid to Nixon and Rockefeller.

Anyway, what do you think about the dangers of Candidate Reagan running a militaristic presidential campaign in '68 similar to McCain '08? I think it's the elephant in the room, and it may be just what either RFK or HHH need to win.

Over at Counterfactual we discussed Viet Nam polling for a bit.

February of 1968 (post-Tet):

  • 24% discontinue struggle
  • 4% continue war, but cut back to key population centres only
  • 10% continue war at present effort
  • 25% gradually broaden and intensify our military operations
  • 28% all-out crash effort, even if China or Russia get involved
  • 9% no opinion

However, 56% would back a government led withdrawal.

I think Reagan could do just fine based on those numbers.

Or, rather, to phrase it in a question RE what did happen OTL: Why didn't Thurmond put out feelers to Reagan's camp about the Senator's policy agenda? Reagan was already outspoken on defence issues, I don't think it need have been done as part of a quid pro quo deal.

In the summer of 1968 Reagan was staying out of the contest, for a variety of reasons including the embarrassing homosexual that worked for him, office reorg problems, and duties of being the Governor.

Put simply—Reagan didn't talk to anyone. And when he finally did, at a fairly important Southern dinner he basically blew it off with a bad speech and wasn't very friendly. One of the few times the Great Communicator screwed up in that fashion.
 
24% discontinue struggle
4% continue war, but cut back to key population centres only
10% continue war at present effort
25% gradually broaden and intensify our military operations
28% all-out crash effort, even if China or Russia get involved
9% no opinion

However, 56% would back a government led withdrawal.

I think Reagan could do just fine based on those numbers.

You think Reagan could have won by either neglecting or even running against a Vietnam compromise solution (Peace With Honour, Secret Plan...?)

I find it hard to believe he wins in '68 as an outspoken hawk.

After all, Humphrey wasn't that much of a pro-war candidate, but because of his position in the administration he was the candidate who had to take direct responsibility for the ongoing military actions; and you admit he was losing until the bombing halt.

Nixon wasn't a pro-war candidate either, but rather a man with vague 'compromise' positions, and most importantly, the ability to criticise the administration's abilities. He was running a John Kerry-esque 'nuance' campaign! (And luckily for him, he was doing so with no imcumbent president running for re-election, and a national feeling of war-weariness at his side.)

I think Reagan getting the nomination and adopting an explicitly pro-war policy is a sure road to disaster, particularly if it leads him to criticise LBJ and Humphrey (or LBJ and Kennedy) for the peace talks. A candidate raising the spectre of Munich and appeasement against a wartime Commander in Chief in the sixties is a candidate that makes John McCain from OTL look like a winner. That's really all I can say about the viability of Reagan the militant hawk.

But it all depends on who is advising him after he wins at Miami.

PS: Basically Reagan-the-militant is at risk of being manipulated by the White House, his campaign turned into a new version of the Bricker Amendment--a foreign policy disaster in the making that must be stopped as a matter of national urgency (I use Senator Bricker's amendment as an example, for during its time it was considered more likely to succeed than either of the presidential campaigns of MacArthur or Goldwater). Nixon-the-nuanced, on the other hand, was planning on being a free agent for his run for the presidency.
 
Last edited:
I think Reagan getting the nomination and adopting an explicitly pro-war policy is a sure road to disaster, particularly if it leads him to criticise LBJ and Humphrey (or LBJ and Kennedy) for the peace talks. A candidate raising the spectre of Munich and appeasement against a wartime Commander in Chief in the sixties is a candidate that makes John McCain from OTL look like a winner. That's really all I can say about the viability of Reagan the militant hawk.

I meant that Reagan being generally seen as a hawk is not going to hurt him based on the known polling data about Viet Nam. In February of 1968 the approval ratings for Viet Nam were roughly 30-35%—but that is explicitly "the war as it currently is". Of the 65-70% disagreeing the greater proportion of them would prefer escalation to withdrawal (they were just a lot quieter about it than the anti-war people).

In practical politics I think he'd do just fine hammering the administration either for doing too little (i.e. in the South, just as Nixon's radio ads in that region OTL were ignored by the media) and for doing too much in the North and probably something like not doing it well enough in the West outside California.

He can make it an issue of competence and can easily adopt the Nixonian "secret plan to win the war" language. He'd probably believe in that too, unlike Nixon, and certainly can do a better job of talking about it.

It's '68, it's quite easy to run a regional strategy geared to what people want without the national media noticing (as, of course, Nixon did).

His advisors, of course, are an interesting question. I'm not sure who, off-hand, although it'll probably be heavy on the early Goldwater men (before Goldwater tossed them in favour of other, rather less competent, people).

PS: Basically Reagan-the-militant is at risk of being manipulated by the White House, his campaign turned into a new version of the Bricker Amendment--a foreign policy disaster in the making that must be stopped as a matter of national urgency (I use Senator Bricker's amendment as an example, for during its time it was considered more likely to succeed than either of the presidential campaigns of MacArthur or Goldwater). Nixon-the-nuanced, on the other hand, was planning on being a free agent for his run for the presidency.

I see what you're saying, but I find it unlikely that LBJ or Humphrey are at this point in time competent enough to do so.

Particularly LBJ, who IOTL probably preferred Nixon to Humphrey, might well be happy with Reagan the hawk. He'd be worried about the Great Society, but he might well not believe Humphrey has the force of character to protect that. Ironically RFK is pretty much LBJ's ideal candidate on social issues and (given that RFK would likely have followed Nixon's planes in Viet Nam, with perhaps less bombing) he would also have won the war[1]

But yeah, I'm not sure LBJ would hammer apart Reagan as he did Goldwater. He's not running, he doesn't like Humphrey, he's old and tired and his popularity is failing.


[1] Whereby South Vietnam continues to exist. If, without Watergate, American supplies keep coming in the country than the North can launch one offence in 1975 which will fall as '72 did and one more in 1978… except by '78 the USSR would have cut off their funding in order to concentrate on Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
He can make it an issue of competence and can easily adopt the Nixonian "secret plan to win the war" language. He'd probably believe in that too, unlike Nixon, and certainly can do a better job of talking about it

I don't know, sixties Reagan comes across and strident and perhaps even a little scary. Nixon was totally grounded in these issues, and it showed, but anyway as you say, "It's quite easy to run a regional strategy geared to what people want without the national media noticing."

His advisors, of course, are an interesting question

If they can prevent him doing televised debates with the Democrat I think that's half the job done!

Reagan making one gaffe, or projecting the wrong tone, is sure to hurt him no end IMO. I suppose Nixon avoiding the debates was really just a holdover from '60, as well as a case of incipient control freakery.
 
Particularly LBJ, who IOTL probably preferred Nixon to Humphrey, might well be happy with Reagan the hawk. He'd be worried about the Great Society, but he might well not believe Humphrey has the force of character to protect that. Ironically RFK is pretty much LBJ's ideal candidate on social issues

Really, he's happy with a guy who might start comparing him to Chamberlain at any moment if his advisers aren't on guard?

I don't quite follow you with the Great Society vis a vis HHH amd RFK. Humphrey was chosen as veep for his ability to be a true believer, 'The Happy Warrior'--and you're aware that LBJ hated Bobbie more than just about anyone in politics, right?


But yeah, I'm not sure LBJ would hammer apart Reagan as he did Goldwater. He's not running, he doesn't like Humphrey, he's old and tired and his popularity is failing

If he believes Reagan is the return of Goldwater then he has a very good reason to rouse himself and go on the attack.
Anyway, his relationship with HHH could be ambivalent, but there was at least the spark of friendship there; it's RFK he hates enough to consider setting adrift, but I don't see that happening unless Rockefeller or another GOP liberal is running. No, I can't get too rosy about the Gipper's chances in 1968, and I'm surprised you and others don't agree with me on that.

Perhaps Wallace dropping out, and that 57% of 'silent majority' voters which the modern Right insists is a single bloc actually comes together, or at least splits fifty-fifty for the GOP, then we have Reagan in '68.
 
I don't quite follow you with the Great Society vis a vis HHH amd RFK. Humphrey was chosen as veep for his ability to be a true believer, 'The Happy Warrior'--and you're aware that LBJ hated Bobbie more than just about anyone in politics, right?

Oh I know. That's why I said ironically—for all that LBJ hated Bobby, RFK probably would have been the best successor LBJ could have hoped for. As for Humphrey it was already clear that LBJ's control over him was usually but always working, and that left to his own devices Humphrey would probably give up on Viet Nam.

Humphrey might have been a believer, but I don't think LBJ liked him much by the end.

If he believes Reagan is the return of Goldwater then he has a very good reason to rouse himself and go on the attack.

Anyway, his relationship with HHH could be ambivalent, but there was at least the spark of friendship there; it's RFK he hates enough to consider setting adrift, but I don't see that happening unless Rockefeller or another GOP liberal is running. No, I can't get too rosy about the Gipper's chances in 1968, and I'm surprised you and others don't agree with me on that.

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. But Goldwater was nuke-happy, Reagan strongly disliked them. It's quite possible that LBJ and Reagan talk via back channels. However, yes, if LBJ decides Reagan is Goldwater than he might make one last effort.

I'm certainly not saying Reagan is a slam dunk. But he's popular with blue collar workers and would probably cut Wallace out of most of the South. Coupled with holding California (which he would against Humphrey and possibly against RFK) that's at least a 50/50 chance for victory against Humphrey and probably 30-40% against RFK.

No slam dunk, but not unreasonable. The problem, as you note, is the legacy of Goldwater. I'm not sure, but it is possible that Reagan the cultural warrior can take strong advantage (as much as Nixon, anyway) in the events of 1968 whereas Humphrey cannot. RFK, on the other hand, also could which is why I consider RFK the probable winner against Reagan while Humphrey is at best no more than even (yet being even against Reagan is better than being down 10-15% in probability against Nixon as IOTL).

So yes, Reagan is less likely to get elected than Nixon by a rather wide margin (especially versus RFK), but even so that doesn't kill his odds simply because Humphrey had a very bad hand IOTL.
 
Top