AHC: One Term Nixon

If he stays out in '68 then he's not going to embark on a kamikaze mission in '72, but rather continue solidifying his control of the Democratic Party. Especially the ideological control part, which will be long and brutal. Better to wait for '76 in that scenario. Plus the problem is framing a narrative when there is very little policy difference between them domestically.
 
One essential is to have Arthur Brener arrested for shoplifting. Wallace would not done as well as third party candidate but he still would have taken seven percent or so from Nixon's total.
 
I gave real trouble believing that Wallace would have made a deal with Nixon. I Assume that before he was shot Wallace planned to run as the candidate of the American Independent Party once again in the fall of 72.
 
/Facepalm. It is historical fact- Nixon even gaffed in his New Year's interview with Rather on 02/01/72 by saying that Wallace would be "their" (the Democrats') problem. If the media picked that up it would lead to CREEP and things would get very Chinese-interesting for Nixon. This is confirmed by the biographers of Wallace, Nixon, or any book written on the period from the 1980s onward.
 
The OP states that Nixon must be defeated, which obviously precludes death or a disability requiring resignation or use of the 25th.

Here's my suggestion: Yahya Khan surrenders power to Mujib in 1970, which prevents the Indo-Pak war of '71. No Pakistan connection to China. That Rather interview is noticed by the media, who go digging, find CREEP and all the other things, fan the flames of ITT. Agnew's scandals surface earlier, Dems nominate Jackson/Sanders.
 
There were a number of factors behind Nixon's victory in 1972. But I wouldn't give the entire credit to Nixon's own efforts or the inherent advantages of his incumbent status. I tend to think that a major factor behind Nixon's victory, or at least the sheer size of his victory, was that the Democratic Party was essentially breaking apart. Now of course, my conclusion may be somewhat simplistic. But the Democrats were clearly suffering from a broken base. The traditional or "Humphrey" Democrats were not willing to support someone like McGovern, and conversely, McGovern's supporters would never support a Vietnam War supporter of any stripe. The broken base probably dates back at least to the previous election. I'm not discounting Nixon's influence here, but the split between the antiwar crowd and the traditional Democratic vote that he exploited in 1972 was not entirely his doing. If the Democrats want to do better, they need something of a unity candidate. Someone who appeals to the traditional Democratic base and the antiwar crowd. Problem is, that candidate simply did not exist.

Sorry if my answer seems rather glib, as it has been a few years since I've studied the 1972 election, and when I did study it, it was almost entirely from the Democratic perspective. As such, my viewpoint is rather skewed.
 
1. Eagleton's mental issues are never made public.
2. McGovern never tells someone to kiss his ass.
3. LBJ dies in '72, right in the middle of the campaign.
4. Agnew's corruption charges come out earlier as well, Nixon refuses to drop him from the ticket.
5. Nixon makes a major gaffe. I mean a major one, he has to make a dead baby joke or something.

That's the only way I could see McGovern narrowly defeating Nixon.
 
1. It will be made public because even if Eagleton is fully honest in the "vetting" (which was the Dem equivalent of the Palin "vetting") there is a lot more to the electroshock than was apparent at the time. Too long for me to detail here but the full story is revealed in all its self-nuking (though McGovern's nomination and the takeover were the self-thermonukings) glory in TMP (Making of a President) '72.

2. Irrelevant.

3. Doesn't change a thing, LBJ was reviled in 1973 IOTL, and his daughters voted for Nixon.

4. Nixon was looking for any excuse to drop Agnew (they went from Orthogonians-in-arms to Agnew's being exiled to the NO within 18 month's of the inaugural) from the ticket IOTL but decided, like Bush in 1992, the hassle would be worse than keeping the dead weight on the ticket. If that did happen he would ask Connally, Reagan or Bush.

5. Nixon's campaign was uber-controlled, as TMP illustrates down to a T. Remember how Hillary got slammed for a planted question at one of her town halls in 2007? Nixon rigged his townhalls to get the demographics and questions he wanted, personally supervised by Ailes. I doubt even the "biracial kids should be aborted" (paraphrasing) quote from the tapes would do much damage in that era.
 
/Facepalm. It is historical fact- Nixon even gaffed in his New Year's interview with Rather on 02/01/72 by saying that Wallace would be "their" (the Democrats') problem. If the media picked that up it would lead to CREEP and things would get very Chinese-interesting for Nixon. This is confirmed by the biographers of Wallace, Nixon, or any book written on the period from the 1980s onward.
Roguebeaver was right.I did some reading and did find mention of the deal Wallace made with Nixon. On January 12, 1972, Wallace announced he would not run as a third party candidate.In exchange Nixon called off the IRS. The.conventional wisdom of early 1972,however, was that Wallace would go back on his word. I am of the opinion that Wallace made that pledge with his fingers crossed.
 
On March 23, 1971, Nixon is on tape accepting a $1 million dollar
s/bribe/campaign contribution from dairy lobbyists. Have someone
on his staff (Fred Fielding?) leak the tape to Carl Bernstein.
 
1. Eagleton's mental issues are never made public.

That's the only way I could see McGovern narrowly defeating Nixon.

1. McGovern would be better to avoid Eagleton altogether. McGovern was convinced, essentially until the last minute, that Senator Edward Kennedy would accept the Vice Presidential nomination. As Roguebeaver mentioned, Kennedy had no interest in entering the race. As a direct consequence of McGovern's belief that Kennedy would eventually agree to run, the Vice Presidential nomination was very haphazard. If McGovern accepts the fact that Kennedy is not going to accept a Vice Presidential nomination earlier than he did historically, there may be time for McGovern to give considerably more thought to who his Vice Presidential nominee should be. Not sure who would emerge as McGovern's pick in such a scenario, but there's a pretty good chance that Eagleton would not be nominated. If the Eagleton affair is avoided McGovern doesn't suffer an early blow to his campaign. Aside from his position on Vietnam, McGovern's real selling point was the perception that he was comparably honest and straightforward, and the Eagleton affair essentially made him look like a hypocrite after he went back on his word. Not saying he'd win, but he'd at least get a few more votes.

4. Nixon was a better politician than McGovern was, so the Agnew problem is going to be handled a bit better than the Eagleton situation was historically. Nevertheless, damage will be done to the campaign. Not enough to tip the balance, but presumably enough to convince some people who would otherwise have voted for Nixon to stay home.

Under these circumstances, McGovern probably still loses, but there's a slight chance he does slightly better than he actually did if Nixon has to deal with Agnew during the campaign, and McGovern actually plans out who his Vice Presidential nominee will be.
 
Go with Fear, Loathing and Gumbo with McGovern dying in a car accident or something shortly before the election. McKeithen wins Mass. and DC.
 
Agnew and Watergate would have to hit their zenith before the election. In addition to this, a better candidate from the Democratic side would have to be chosen. Or for a McGovern victory, which is the largest stretch in the world, I think both the quote that sealed 'amnesty, abortion and acid' would have to have not been uttered, in addition to Eagleton never having been chosen as VP. Even then....probably not the most realistic thing in the world for McGovern to win.
 
Top