The POD is that neither Goldwater or Rockefeller obtain enough delegates to win the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964. A brokered convention puts forward moderate Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton as a compromise candidate, and he goes on to face President Johnson in November. Because both major party candidates support civil rights, George Wallace runs as an independent candidate. What would be the outcome of this ATL three way election? What would be the long term impact of a 1964 election without a Republican Southern Strategy?
 
I think that Scranton is too liberal to get the nomination even if Goldwater falls short (I doubt that Goldwater could be stopped even if he lost California, but if he is indeed stopped, I think Nixon is a more plausible compromise nominee than Scranton--see
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/nixon-nominated-in-1964.456666/#post-17953213). But if Scranton is nominated, LBJ will easily win a three-way race. Peace and prosperity and the reluctance of the American people to have three presidents within fifteen months would make LBJ very hard to beat; and while Scranton will of course get the votes of many moderate Republicans who would not vote for Goldwater, Wallace would not only win much of the South but could get some right-wing Republican support in the North and West.
 
But if Scranton is nominated, LBJ will easily win a three-way race. Peace and prosperity and the reluctance of the American people to have three presidents within fifteen months would make LBJ very hard to beat; and while Scranton will of course get the votes of many moderate Republicans who would not vote for Goldwater, Wallace would not only win much of the South but could get some right-wing Republican support in the North and West.

I doubt a significant number of northern Republicans would desert Scranton for Wallace. Even in 1968, Wallace pulled more votes from Humphrey in the North while taking more votes from Nixon in the South. Scranton most likely takes the plains states, a few Western States like Idaho and Utah, as well as upper New England. He might also be able to win a state like Indiana. But he'd lose in a landslide, and probably wouldn't even get 100 electoral votes. Wallace would take the Deep South states that Goldwater won in OTL.

In the long term, how is political history changed without a Goldwater nomination in '64?
 
I doubt a significant number of northern Republicans would desert Scranton for Wallace. Even in 1968, Wallace pulled more votes from Humphrey in the North while taking more votes from Nixon in the South.

That may be true but Nixon was conservative enough for most right-wing Republicans to swallow--and I am not sure that this was the case with Scranton.
 
That may be true but Nixon was conservative enough for most right-wing Republicans to swallow--and I am not sure that this was the case with Scranton.

Conservatives who don't like Scranton are much more likely to stay home than vote for Wallace. It's one thing to disagree with your party's nominee, it's another thing to betray the party in favor of an avowed segregationist. That doesn't mean no Republicans would vote for Wallace, but very few would. Wallace would largely take votes from LBJ, not Scranton, but even if you swing up to 7% away from Johnson he still wins decisively.

Either way, Scranton is hurt in the general election and he is doomed to defeat in November. He'd do better than Goldwater, but that's not a very high bar is it?
 
How would Johnson v Nixon v Wallace play out?

IMO that's only possible if Nixon had beaten Pat Brown in 1962. The problem is that Nixon ran a terrible campaign, and very clearly only wanted to be Governor so he could run again in '64. But had he won, and had he been nominated again in 1964, Nixon would have lost in a landslide. He'd do better than Goldwater (or Scranton, or Rockefeller, or Lodge) but he'd still lose. LBJ gets over 400 electoral votes, and even wins Nixon's home state of California.

Nixon vs LBJ 1964.png
 
IMO that's only possible if Nixon had beaten Pat Brown in 1962. The problem is that Nixon ran a terrible campaign, and very clearly only wanted to be Governor so he could run again in '64. But had he won, and had he been nominated again in 1964, Nixon would have lost in a landslide. He'd do better than Goldwater (or Scranton, or Rockefeller, or Lodge) but he'd still lose. LBJ gets over 400 electoral votes, and even wins Nixon's home state of California.

View attachment 443937

What about a Nixon - Margaret Chase Smith ticket?
 
What about a Nixon - Margaret Chase Smith ticket?

That would be interesting. Perhaps Nixon, fearing a landslide defeat, decides to pick a woman as VP in order to create excitement around the ticket. This is what Mondale and McCain did in 1984 and 2008. It might temporarily help Nixon if he can mobilize female voters around his candidacy, but as the months go on the excitement would die down and Nixon/Smith lose in a landslide. It's also worth noting that some conservative Republicans would be disgruntled by the choice of the moderate Smith. Then again, no one complained when Nixon chose Lodge. Lastly, and this is unfortunate, Smith was not taken seriously by many in the media and the party leadership because she was a woman. Today she'd be a prime presidential contender, but back in 1964 she wasn't shown much respect by a male dominated political process.

Aside from Smith, Nixon could pick Scranton - a fellow moderate and a popular Governor - or even Goldwater's OTL VP William Miller to appeal to party conservatives.
 
That would be interesting. Perhaps Nixon, fearing a landslide defeat, decides to pick a woman as VP in order to create excitement around the ticket. This is what Mondale and McCain did in 1984 and 2008. It might temporarily help Nixon if he can mobilize female voters around his candidacy, but as the months go on the excitement would die down and Nixon/Smith lose in a landslide. It's also worth noting that some conservative Republicans would be disgruntled by the choice of the moderate Smith. Then again, no one complained when Nixon chose Lodge. Lastly, and this is unfortunate, Smith was not taken seriously by many in the media and the party leadership because she was a woman. Today she'd be a prime presidential contender, but back in 1964 she wasn't shown much respect by a male dominated political process.

Aside from Smith, Nixon could pick Scranton - a fellow moderate and a popular Governor - or even Goldwater's OTL VP William Miller to appeal to party conservatives.

Goldwater picked Miller for strange reasons OTL. He thought he annoyed Johnson, and figured that if he was gonna lose he may as well go down annoying the hell out of LBJ.

Smith was chosen as Chair of the Senate Republican Conference in 1967. That seems like a pretty steep contrast with the idea that she wasn't shown much respect. She was also fairly hawkish (Kruschev called her the devil) and defended Goldwater's Social Security position in 1964.

If Nixon could bring his home state along for the ride and mobilize women voters, I think it could be a competitive race. Goldwater was also a party man and I think he'd stump hard for Nixon.
 
If Nixon could bring his home state along for the ride and mobilize women voters, I think it could be a competitive race.

No it wouldn't. At no point between November 1963 and November 1964 did LBJ not lead his prospective opponents by double digits. The economy was strong, the US was at peace, the country rallied behind LBJ in the aftermath of JFK's death, his domestic achievements were broadly popular, and he had a highly effective PR campaign behind him. Johnson could not lose under any realistic circumstance.

Goldwater was also a party man and I think he'd stump hard for Nixon.

Goldwater would only hurt Nixon by campaigning for him.

Smith was chosen as Chair of the Senate Republican Conference in 1967. That seems like a pretty steep contrast with the idea that she wasn't shown much respect.

I wasn't referring to the Senate, where she commanded great respect, but to the male dominated news media that never took her campaign seriously. As an example: When JFK was asked at a press conference what he thought of a Smith candidacy, the male reporters in the audience laughed at the idea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...se-smith-ran-in-the-new-hampshire-primary/amp

As a result, Smith's campaign didn't receive the same media attention as Goldwater or Rockefeller despite her popularity and qualifications for the office of President. Even today, female politicians are held to a different standard than men and this was even worse in 1964.
 
Top