AHC: Robert F. Kennedy vs. Nelson Rockefeller.

[Wildcard F. Kennedy]

The challenge, using a POD of whenever you like, set us up a Rockefeller/Kennedy battle for the presidency.

The rules:
1. Let us know which election year/cycle this is. It's wide open, but remember to keep it plausible.
2. Name the running mates, or at least the short lists for each man.
3. Who wins?
4. Share your thoughts on what the winners presidency might look like, and what becomes of the loser.
5. Have fun!

 

[bguy]

Alright, how about this.

In 1960 Nixon decides to go with Everett Dirksen for his Vice President instead of Henry Cabot Lodge. With Dirksen on the ticket Nixon carries Illinois. Also Dirksen doesn't make any statement about putting an African-American in the Cabinet, which leads to Nixon doing slightly better in the south, so Nixon also carries Texas and with it the election.

President Nixon offers the Secretary of the State position to Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller hems and haws a great deal about whether it is worth giving up being the first man in New York for a subordinate role in D.C., but ultimately the prospect of being a major player on the world stage is just to great for him, and he accepts the Secretary of State position. Nixon goes on to win reelection in 1964 on the strength of a good economy and the prestige from having overthrown Castro.

The Nixon Administration achieves a number of foreign policy successes in its 2 terms. Overthrowing Castro in the first term and opening up relations with China and achieving arms control accords with the Soviets in the second term. (South Vietnam is still a mess, but since Nixon doesn't authorize the overthrow of President Diem, the South Vietnamese government is able to stagger along without the large scale deployment of US troops to the country.) Rockefeller as the Secretary of State is largely associated with these foreign policy successes (even though President Nixon actually kept Secretary of State Rockefeller largely sidelined from his major foreign policy initiatives and mainly had Rockefeller dealing with NATO, Africa and Latin America while Nixon handled the Soviets and Chinese), and thus Rocky is able to use the prestige from his successful tenure as Secretary of State (along with the support of President Nixon who is supporting Rockefeller over his main opponent for the nomination, Senator Goldwater, since Goldwater has been highly critical of Nixon opening up relations with China and working for detente with the Soviets). Thus Rockefeller ends up winning the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

As for RFK, since his brother was not elected in 1960, he doesn't have a Cabinet post. RFK therefore runs for and wins Governor of Massachusetts in 1962 (and gets reelected in 1964). JFK decides not to run for president in 1964 (his health is not great, so he doesn't really want to go through another presidential campaign), so an unenthusiastic Democrat Party nominates LBJ that year who goes on to lose to Nixon in the fall. Meanwhile RFK is proving a successful Governor. He earns a reputation for being tough on crime (enacting some of the toughest anti-drug laws in the country) while also a champion for civil rights after he secures the enactment of open housing legislation in Massachusetts. With his brother again deciding not to run for the presidency in 1968, the path is open for RFK, and with the rising national crime rate and civil rights proving to be major issues that year, RFK is able to use his record as Governor of Massachusetts to secure the Democratic nomination.

As for running mates:

I could see Rockefeller considering Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky, Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio, Governor George Romney of Michigan, Congressman Gerald Ford of Michigan and (assuming they won their 1964 elections which IOTL they all narrowly lost) Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada and Governor Charles Percy of Illinois.

As for Kennedy, he's almost certainly facing a 3rd party challenge from George Wallace, so he probably needs a moderate southerner. Maybe former Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. Senator Al Gore of Tennessee could also be a possibility if any civil rights legislation pushed by President Nixon was sufficiently watered down that Gore was able to vote for it.

I imagine even with a Wallace 3rd party candidacy that Kennedy would win. The Republicans will have been in power by 16 years at this point, so the country will be ready to give the Democrats a chance, and the right wing of the Republicans is going to be very unenthusiastic about a Rockefeller candidacy.

I don't really know enough about RFK to speculate that much on how his presidency is likely to go. However, based on things that RB has said in the past, it sounds as though IOTL RFK became much more compassionate and concerned for the plight of the less fortunate after his brother's murder. ITTL he hasn't gone through such a wrenching. life changing experience, so President Robert Kennedy here might be much more about fighting a war on crime rather than a war on poverty. He probably will still aggressively pursue desegregation in the south though.

 

[Zorqal]

Alright, how about this.

In 1960 Nixon decides to go with Everett Dirksen for his Vice President instead of Henry Cabot Lodge. With Dirksen on the ticket Nixon carries Illinois. Also Dirksen doesn't make any statement about putting an African-American in the Cabinet, which leads to Nixon doing slightly better in the south, so Nixon also carries Texas and with it the election.

President Nixon offers the Secretary of the State position to Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller hems and haws a great deal about whether it is worth giving up being the first man in New York for a subordinate role in D.C., but ultimately the prospect of being a major player on the world stage is just to great for him, and he accepts the Secretary of State position. Nixon goes on to win reelection in 1964 on the strength of a good economy and the prestige from having overthrown Castro.

The Nixon Administration achieves a number of foreign policy successes in its 2 terms. Overthrowing Castro in the first term and opening up relations with China and achieving arms control accords with the Soviets in the second term. (South Vietnam is still a mess, but since Nixon doesn't authorize the overthrow of President Diem, the South Vietnamese government is able to stagger along without the large scale deployment of US troops to the country.) Rockefeller as the Secretary of State is largely associated with these foreign policy successes (even though President Nixon actually kept Secretary of State Rockefeller largely sidelined from his major foreign policy initiatives and mainly had Rockefeller dealing with NATO, Africa and Latin America while Nixon handled the Soviets and Chinese), and thus Rocky is able to use the prestige from his successful tenure as Secretary of State (along with the support of President Nixon who is supporting Rockefeller over his main opponent for the nomination, Senator Goldwater, since Goldwater has been highly critical of Nixon opening up relations with China and working for detente with the Soviets). Thus Rockefeller ends up winning the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

As for RFK, since his brother was not elected in 1960, he doesn't have a Cabinet post. RFK therefore runs for and wins Governor of Massachusetts in 1962 (and gets reelected in 1964). JFK decides not to run for president in 1964 (his health is not great, so he doesn't really want to go through another presidential campaign), so an unenthusiastic Democrat Party nominates LBJ that year who goes on to lose to Nixon in the fall. Meanwhile RFK is proving a successful Governor. He earns a reputation for being tough on crime (enacting some of the toughest anti-drug laws in the country) while also a champion for civil rights after he secures the enactment of open housing legislation in Massachusetts. With his brother again deciding not to run for the presidency in 1968, the path is open for RFK, and with the rising national crime rate and civil rights proving to be major issues that year, RFK is able to use his record as Governor of Massachusetts to secure the Democratic nomination.

As for running mates:

I could see Rockefeller considering Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky, Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio, Governor George Romney of Michigan, Congressman Gerald Ford of Michigan and (assuming they won their 1964 elections which IOTL they all narrowly lost) Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada and Governor Charles Percy of Illinois.

As for Kennedy, he's almost certainly facing a 3rd party challenge from George Wallace, so he probably needs a moderate southerner. Maybe former Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. Senator Al Gore of Tennessee could also be a possibility if any civil rights legislation pushed by President Nixon was sufficiently watered down that Gore was able to vote for it.

I imagine even with a Wallace 3rd party candidacy that Kennedy would win. The Republicans will have been in power by 16 years at this point, so the country will be ready to give the Democrats a chance, and the right wing of the Republicans is going to be very unenthusiastic about a Rockefeller candidacy.

I don't really know enough about RFK to speculate that much on how his presidency is likely to go. However, based on things that RB has said in the past, it sounds as though IOTL RFK became much more compassionate and concerned for the plight of the less fortunate after his brother's murder. ITTL he hasn't gone through such a wrenching. life changing experience, so President Robert Kennedy here might be much more about fighting a war on crime rather than a war on poverty. He probably will still aggressively pursue desegregation in the south though.

That all sounds likely to me. For VPs, Laxalt was more of the Goldwater wing, so I think he would be a good choice if the party wanted to extend a hand to that wing of the party and try and prevent a split ticket. As for RFK, Gore seems to be a solid choice. I doubt that Civil Rights would gain much traction under Nixon if only because of protecting the state's right to choose, so I think its more likely that RFK would have to be the one doing the passing of any legislation. But at the same time, it took a southerner to pass it in OTL, so RFK may not be able to. Gore could help him, but I don't know if he would.

 

[bguy]

That all sounds likely to me. For VPs, Laxalt was more of the Goldwater wing, so I think he would be a good choice if the party wanted to extend a hand to that wing of the party and try and prevent a split ticket. As for RFK, Gore seems to be a solid choice. I doubt that Civil Rights would gain much traction under Nixon if only because of protecting the state's right to choose, so I think its more likely that RFK would have to be the one doing the passing of any legislation. But at the same time, it took a southerner to pass it in OTL, so RFK may not be able to. Gore could help him, but I don't know if he would.

A western conservative like Laxalt does make the most sense for Rockefeller. I just don't know if Rocky is pragmatic enough to make such a move.

As for civil rights under President Nixon, I would think by the mid 1960s the pressure for some sort of significant civil rights bill will be pretty much irresistible. (Especially if Nixon makes passing a civil rights bill a major part of his 1964 reelection campaign which would be logical for him to do if the Democrats are running a southern candidate like LBJ that year.) And Nixon should be able to get a civil rights bill enacted. There aren't enough southern senators to maintain a fillibuster by themselves, and its going to be very hard for the South to get any allies from the rest of the country when Americans are seeing civil rights protestors being violently attacked on the evening news every night, so he should be able to secure the votes necessary to break a southern fillibuster. (The main reason that Johnson was so critical for the passage of civil rights legislation IOTL was because LBJ was trying to get civil rights and the Kennedy tax cut passed in the same session and getting two major pieces of legislation enacted required very adroit legislative skills. If President Nixon just concentrates on civil rights though and isn't trying to simulatenously get another major piece of legislation enacted then it becomes a lot simpler to force a civil rights bill through Congress.) Thus I would imagine Nixon should be able to get some sort of civil rights bill passed by 1965-66 at the latest. (And at an absolute minimum he should at least be able to get something akin to OTL's 1965 Voting Rights Act passed since even Goldwater and Gore will presumably support voting rights legislation.)

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

That would be interesting, because Nelson Rockefeller was very liberal than any Republicans at his time.

 

[Wallet]

The democrats after losing 4 elections, would be very wary about nominating the brother of a loser. Especially if his loss is blamed on his catholic faith.

 

[bguy]

The democrats after losing 4 elections, would be very wary about nominating the brother of a loser. Especially if his loss is blamed on his catholic faith.

Well even after losing 4 elections in a row the Republicans were still willing to give Thomas Dewey a second shot at the presidency, so I don't think its that improbable that the Democrats would be willing to take a chance on nominating the brother of a loser. (Especially if that loser came the closest to winning the presidency that any Democrat had done in the last 20 years.)

Also the Democratic bench looks pretty thin for 1968 in this scenario. LBJ is too discredited for losing in 1964 (and his loss probably means that the Democrats will think no southerner can win.) Humphrey was likely Johnson's veep candidate in 1964, so he's also probably tainted from that loss. McGovern is too obscure to win the nomination at a time when the party bosses still control most of the delegates (and might well have lost his 1962 senate race ITTL anyway, since it was a razor close election IOTL.) Pat Brown is a fellow Catholic, so any anti-Catholic prejudice in the Democratic presidential nomination process will hurt him just as much as it will RFK (and if RFK otherwise has better tough on crime credentials than Brown then RFK should have the advantage between the two in an election where crime is likely to be a major issue.) Robert Morgenthau might well be the Governor of New York (since he wouldn't have to face Rockefeller in the 1962 race ITTL), but he's Jewish and if the Democrats are nervous about running a Catholic candidate then they certainly aren't going to run a Jewish candidate. Stuart Symington is pretty old by 1968 (and never really proved an effective presidential candidate anyway). And Henry Jackson also never proved to be an effective presidential candidate. So out of that field a RFK who has been a successful Governor of Massachusetts should have a pretty good shot at winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

[Apollo 20]

Alright, how about this...

This is really good. But, you may well have butterflied away the election of Reagan in 1966, which sets up a Pat Brown candidacy in 1968 quite nicely and I'm not sure RFK could beat Brown at what would be the height of Brown's powers. Brown had one hell of a record as governor in California and he was one hell of a pol to boot. Brown would be California new and fresh with a proven record, RFK the brother of a loser with shady ties to Joe McCarthy. Both were Catholic and Brown would be an easier sell on the surface.

 

[Wildcard F. Kennedy]

bguy, your write up is so very good! I like it.


ITTL, I wonder how long JFK remains in the senate? I certainly don't think there would be any chance of him losing his seat, so it's his as long as he's able and willing. I can see him running again in 62 for sure, and most likely again in 68. Knowing Bobby's plans for the white house, I'm sure he'd want to be a key connection in the senate for his brother.

What happens to Ted here? Congress? Maybe he tries to take over the reigns from RFK and runs for governor of Mass. after Bobby's departure.

 

[bguy]

This is really good. But, you may well have butterflied away the election of Reagan in 1966, which sets up a Pat Brown candidacy in 1968 quite nicely and I'm not sure RFK could beat Brown at what would be the height of Brown's powers. Brown had one hell of a record as governor in California and he was one hell of a pol to boot. Brown would be California new and fresh with a proven record, RFK the brother of a loser with shady ties to Joe McCarthy. Both were Catholic and Brown would be an easier sell on the surface.

That's true but California is still likely to have sufficient racial tension that it will have some sort of Watts style major riot in the 1960s. (Especially if President Nixon is only able to pass a watered down civil rights bill.) And if there is a protracted U.S. occupation of Cuba that will likely inspire some sort of Counterculture movement and lead to student unrest at Berkeley. If Governor Brown is seen as mishandling the riots and student unrest then that would damage his candidacy in an election year where crime is one of the major issues and could leave an opening for RFK.

There are also a few other ways to derail a Brown candidacy:

1. Hoping to appeal to the Catholic vote and force Nixon to play defense in his home state, LBJ goes with Brown as his veep in 1964 instead of Humphrey. Nixon still carries California as part of winning the election, so Brown is tagged as a loser who couldn't even deliver his own state while Humphrey (without having had LBJ basically vouch for him) is too toxic in the South come 1968 to win the nomination, so it goes to RFK;

2. Brown is actually LBJ's main opponent for the Democrat nomination in 1964 and heavily attacks LBJ during the primaries (maybe using the Bobby Baker Scandal to suggest that LBJ is a crook). LBJ still wins the nomination, but Brown's attacks against LBJ do a lot of damage and are echoed by Nixon in the fall campaign. Brown ends up mortally offending LBJ and makes enemies of the Democratic machine bosses (who felt that it was LBJ's "turn" and thus dislike Brown for trying to jump his place in line) and the South (who blame Brown for LBJ's defeat), so those groups all back RFK in 1968; or

3. Sirhan Sirhan is presumably still running around California in 1968 in this scenario. It's easy enough to imagine him developing some sort of insane grudge against the Governor of his state and assassinating Brown.

ITTL, I wonder how long JFK remains in the senate? I certainly don't think there would be any chance of him losing his seat, so it's his as long as he's able and willing. I can see him running again in 62 for sure, and most likely again in 68. Knowing Bobby's plans for the white house, I'm sure he'd want to be a key connection in the senate for his brother.

Agreed that JFK likely remains in the Senate a long time. (I suppose RFK could decide to put him in the Cabinet as Secretary of State or Defense, but it would be probably be rather difficult for both men for JFK to take that much of a subordinate role to his younger brother.) JFK's senate seat was up in 1964 though rather than 1962. (Which is another reason for JFK to forego running for President that year since it would mean giving up his senate seat.)

What happens to Ted here? Congress? Maybe he tries to take over the reigns from RFK and runs for governor of Mass. after Bobby's departure.

Probably spends most of the 1960s in the House of Representatives. Teddy running to succeed Bobby as Governor of Massachusetts is an interesting possibility though I don't know if Joe Kennedy would be ok with Teddy running for Governor in the same year that Bobby is running for President. (He would probably want the family fully focused on getting Bobby elected that year.) Assuming JFK doesn't take a Cabinet position, maybe Teddy takes one. (Though I don't think Teddy really has the right temperament or background for State, Treasury, Defense, or Justice. He would probably enjoy being Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare the best, though Joe and Bobby might think that position is too junior to be worthy of the President's brother.)