AHC and WI: Reagan in '68?

Reagan winning the election in '76 seems to be a popular discussion topic, but no one really talks about him getting the nomination in 1968, the first time he ran.
Let's say Nixon dies in '66 or '67, so Romney and Rockefeller split the moderate/liberal Republican vote, and Reagan narrowly wins the nomination. Let's say Wallace and Humphrey still run as OTL. Some things to consider:

1. In this scenario, there is no clean Republican frontrunner from the the beginning like they had in OTL in Nixon, so the convention will still be pretty nasty. Probably not equivalent to the travesty that was the Democratic Convention in '68, but something like a repeat of the convention in '64.

2. That being said, Reagan was a better campaigner and more charismatic than Goldwater, will probably have the broader support of the Republican Party if he picks the right running mate. And unlike Nixon, he didn't have a Checkers speech and there would be far less suspicion of him among the general public.

3. Hitting back on what I mentioned before, who would be a good running mate for Reagan?

4. Will their be debates? A big part of why their weren't any in OTL '68 is because Nixon didn't want to repeat the unpleasant experience he had in '60's debate. Reagan is, after all, the Great Communicator, and may want to put his acting ability to use taking on Humphrey.
Or maybe Humphrey doesn't want to debate, so Reagan does what he did with Anderson in '80 and has a two-man debate with Wallace, which will be interesting.
OR maybe there will be a three-man debate, which will be VERY interesting.

5. Who wins, realistically?

6. Now let's assume Reagan wins. How do things pan out?
 
Reagan could get the nod if Nixon wasn't in the race. Romney wasn't a big enough figure, really, and Rockefeller was too out of step with the party to get the nomination.

As for a running mate, that really depends on whether or not Reagan targets the South in the same way Nixon did. If he chooses to do so, he's going to need to pick a Southern Republican. If not, someone like Romney wouldn't be a bad choice.

I imagine that Humphrey would want to avoid debates, since he'd be forced to defend the Johnson administration's record. For that reason, I don't think there will be any.

Reagan would win, I'd guess; he has all the benefits Nixon has as well as the fact that he's not Richard Nixon, which most people would see as a positive. I don't think there'll be a landslide or anything, but perhaps a slightly more comfortable victory.
 
Is the Democratic situation different than OTL? If not, I'll respond assuming everything except Nixon's death occurs as per OTL.

Reagan's VP: Jim Rhodes is the logical choice.

Debates: The tricky part is excluding Wallace, but if HHH and Reagan come to a private agreement and pay for it themselves the networks will have to say yes. Including Wallace would make it one giant troll-fest and hurt HHH the most.

GE: I'd say Reagan wins, but he has to careful with his ideological rhetoric. While the NDC was dead as a political coalition, its policies as a bipartisan consensus were most certainly not. Voters over 50 are old enough to remember the GD and HHH will paint it as a return to the "jungle" so to speak.

Reagan's policies: Don't have time to fully answer, but Historico's "Reagan in '68" TL should give you a pretty good idea.
 
Well, something else to consider. Reagan was elected to be California's Governor in 1966 on the promise to "send the welfare bums back to work" and "clean up the mess at Berkeley", so would he translate that to a national stage?
Would he support Roe v. Wade, and what about other social issues?
I can't really see him working with Kissinger, so would we lose the opportunity to apply realpolitik to China? Still recognize the Taipei government? What about the Panama Canal? Yom Kippur War?
And, of course, how would Reagan handle Vietnam?
 
Of course Reagan could. All the candidates were talking law and order in '68, though Reagan, Nixon and RFK were the ones who had street cred (no pun intended) on that subject.

Kissinger: Absolutely not.

Panama Canal: Keeping it was a cornerstone of his primary challenge against Ford: "We built it, we own it and we'll keep it."

YK: Full support for Israel no matter what the Europeans say.

'Nam: Fully backing Abrams and perhaps taking the war into the North.
 
Reagan had been becoming a name in the Republican party throughout the 60s, but he'd only been governor of California since January of 1967.

Could he really win the 68 nomination with so little experience?
 
I think Reagan loses the general election His hawkish views areoit if step with public opinion and Wallace splits the conservative vote. Rhodes is not his running mate. He is too conservative. Reagan would seek to balance the ticket as he did in 76 and 80.
 
Reagan would IMO sweep the South except for Alabama and Mississippi. I don't know how Wallace would attack Reagan, and HHH is going to get less than 40% of the WWC vote nationally. In the South, maybe below 30%.

Reagan VP: The only other option who would be acceptable to Thurmond & Co. is Ford IMO. All the Class of '66ers are too inexperienced to share a ticket with one of their own.

'Nam: Which is why Reagan has to stress domestic issues.

Map might be something like this. I flip OH because Reagan has more WWC appeal than Nixon, the South for obvious reasons and Oregon because Reagan's too conservative. Ford brings in Michigan.

genusmap.php


Reagan/Ford: 370 EV
Humphrey/Muskie: 151 EV
Wallace/LeMay: 17 EV
 
Humphrey wins easy just like LBJ in 64, All the democrats have to do is call Reagan Goldwalter lite. Many Democrtas stayed at home in 68 or voted for Nixon. 68 was the last election a liberal had a chance to win an election . Running against Reagan gives them that chance. Labor and the youth will come out hard for HHH. Humphrey may pick another running mate. Maybe McGovern to make sure he gets the anti war vote. McGovern was running for re election in the Senate , but he may take the VP route.
 
Reagan is much more polished and infinitely more charismatic than Goldwater. No Democrat is winning anything but a squeaker under anything resembling OTL '68 conditions, and definitely not against Reagan.
 
I think Humphrey wins a narrow election. Reagan wasn't as refined a speaker yet, and his experience in 1976 really proved crucial in 1980. Therefore he probably makes a few more gaffes to the benefit of Humphrey. It's going to be a close election though.

As for Wallace, the only way I could see him attacking Reagan is as an actor, "Mr. Hollywood" if you will. How effective this is is up for debate.
 
HHH was a lot better campaigner than Reagan in 68. America was still a liberal nation. In 76 Reagan ruined his campaign with his Social Security talk. Just like he would have done in 68 being Goldwater lite. He called medicare socialsm in 65 . He made tv commercials against it. Those commercials would have made great ads for HHH. Plus his hawk stance on the war. In 1980 He was losing in the polls to Carter until the last weekend which happened to be the year anniversary of The Iran hostage situation. The 68 election would not be close. HHH would win in a walk. Reagan in 80 and 84 was his time. 68 no. Most elections have one strong candidate vs a weak one . Reagan got weak opponents in 80 and 84. In 68 he was the out of touch one and the weak one. I say Rocky would have beaten him for the nomination in 68. The The GOP debacle of 64 was still a strong stench in the air and no right winger was going to win than.
 
Hmm, assuming Reagan has two terms, who do ya think would be his hand-picked successor in '76? I imagine Ford wouldn't run in 76 without Reagan's blessing, so that takes him out. John Connally? Jim Buckley?
 
I have to disagree with Rogue Beaver.The Salt Lake City speech makes Humphrey the peace candidate and elects him president. Also Ford is tooconservative and does not fit Reagan's pattern for picking by mates.
 
Top