I don't want LBJ to win and I don't really understand why most of the readership are rooting for him. He was not a good person, he was vile, racist and eccentric in a weird way (Jumbo says hello!). Also, it seems like the obvious thing to do. I really like Romney as a character (he is probably the best character in the TL so far) and Reagan doesn't really excite me. For the Democrats I want either Muskie or Scoop to win. However, I think Scoop's chance has been and gone. As for my actual predictions, Reagan will beat LBJ.
Blue Skies in Camelot: An Alternate 60's and Beyond
- Thread starter President_Lincoln
- Start date
Well, he was a bit of a badass. Plus, he did work to incorporate welfare programs that helped people in the “Great Society.” So even if he did act like a jackass, he was the type of good jackass that was an ass for the right things.
You know personally I would perfer a Reagan vs LBJ contest, (kinda like how I would like a Cruz vs Sanders contest) because it be a true contest of Ideolgies, Unbridled liberalism versus unbridled Conservatism with the debate truely thrown to the American people.
As can be told by the phrase underneath my name I'll defend LBJ at the risk of causing an argument. I don't know why others here support him, but I know why I do. I support him because he managed to transform the Senate from being the place where bills went to die thanks to the Southern Democrats to where actual debate and legislation could be passed. I support him because he tried to tackle poverty across the board. I support him because he actually gave a damn about the southern states beyond just a nice place to get some votes. Yes, he was a bit odd and easily a total asshole that I can't and won't defend. But his bizarre personality doesn't negate the good he did. Sure, he bullied senators, but it was to push Civil Rights and the Great Society through. Your charge of him being a racist is a bit odd considering he was the one that enacted Civil Rights and Voting Rights when he did not have to. He could have just sat back and played it safe with the Southern Democrats. Yet he didn't. He was also one of the three southern senators who refused to sign the Southern Manifesto after Brown v. Board of Education. Sure, he aligned himself with racists which is very unfortunate. Sure, he probably used language we wouldn't consider to be acceptable today, but he comes from times where what is acceptable is different and he was from rural Texas on top of that.
I apologize if this came across as confrontational, it was not intentional. I am obviously not the most unbiased source.
Muskie isn't a bad choice, but he needs to shore up his blue-collar credentials to really dig in to beat LBJ and secure the general.
But yeah, the Helsinki summit is everything. If the Soviets drop the ball, Romney wins the nomination and might even win the general; can you imagine him coming back from Helsinki, the Soviets having fucked up enough to make Giap flip, and saying to the American people "I've convinced General Giap to agree to a reunification election for Vietnam"? That would win him the general, no questions asked.
Which would then leave him in a weird situation when Egypt decides they're ready to strike a critically overextended Israel. With the US situation and diplomatic approach so different TTL, though, the YKW could go down very differently.
Racist, really? Guy who got the Voting Rights Act through and the Poll Tax amendment? Man who had the balls to challenge the Southern Democrats--his own wing of the party, given that he was from Texas?
In an era when the NAACP was allowed to use their full name without strange looks, a few comments that we'd consider off-color today don't really qualify someone who took on the Southern dixiecrat machine for status as a racist.
Aggressive to the point of overstepping his bounds pusher of his agenda? Yeah, that's something you can pull on Johnson. Willing to get his hands dirty? Oh hell yeah. He was more than happy to use dickhole methods to deal with the dickhole people in Congress. But when it came to the American people, Johnson was the guy who would move heaven and earth for them.
Good update. Hopefully, Romney doesn't screw things up at the summit. Reagan is doing very well and this will be a springboard for his future endeavors...
On the Democratic side, Muskie is making it a fight for LBJ; makes me wonder what Bremer will do ITTL (or if it's butterflied away altogether)...
@Worffan101 summed up my views on LBJ nicely here:
The 1972 campaign will be more interesting than OTL (a side note about Shirley Temple: in 1968 IOTL, she happened to be in Prague as part of an American delegation and led a American Embassy-led convoy of vehicles that evacuated Americans from the country (1); makes me wonder if it happened here ITTL), that's for sure...
BTW, "If You Don't Know Me By Now" was a song sung by Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes and released in September of 1972 (a little later than the time frame of this period), so congrats for continuing the pattern, @President_Lincoln...
Waiting for more...
(1) A lot of the Communist Czechs (including the hardliners who replaced Dubchek) were reportedly fans of her movies...
On the Democratic side, Muskie is making it a fight for LBJ; makes me wonder what Bremer will do ITTL (or if it's butterflied away altogether)...
@Worffan101 summed up my views on LBJ nicely here:
The 1972 campaign will be more interesting than OTL (a side note about Shirley Temple: in 1968 IOTL, she happened to be in Prague as part of an American delegation and led a American Embassy-led convoy of vehicles that evacuated Americans from the country (1); makes me wonder if it happened here ITTL), that's for sure...
BTW, "If You Don't Know Me By Now" was a song sung by Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes and released in September of 1972 (a little later than the time frame of this period), so congrats for continuing the pattern, @President_Lincoln...
Waiting for more...
(1) A lot of the Communist Czechs (including the hardliners who replaced Dubchek) were reportedly fans of her movies...
BP Booker
Banned
I knew the Kennedys would form a Stop Johnson movement around Muskie!
Gerbbro has pretty much layed out how it was Johnson signature who made the Civil Rights Acts happen, and of course the Great Society is a thing. But in the more meta level, an LBJ victory would pave the way for the Democratic Party to take its "rightful place" back in the South, this time not on the back of White Supremacy, but on a coalition of Blacks and poor Whites. And that honestly just makes for an interesting scenario. Im not very well read on what is considered a "cliche" here (as in, an overused idea) but I feel a "post civil rights Democratic alligned South" is not a common "trope". So, its part "LBJ was a good President" (not a controversial statement, if you are willing to take the good with the Viet-bad) and "We want the interesting thing to happen"
Im still convinced that he wont. But he is doing better that I tought he would and I seriously dont understand why. Things are fine. The state of the country is nowhere near how it was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy decided to topple Carter. "The Government is Working" and "Good Things are Happening" is how I would describe George Romneys America. Hell, he could run with one of those as his campaign slogan. Yeah its a little bit boring, but in the end is that not what the people want? That the government ensures the welfare, happiness and security of its citizens. How has Romney not delivered on this?
Gerbbro has pretty much layed out how it was Johnson signature who made the Civil Rights Acts happen, and of course the Great Society is a thing. But in the more meta level, an LBJ victory would pave the way for the Democratic Party to take its "rightful place" back in the South, this time not on the back of White Supremacy, but on a coalition of Blacks and poor Whites. And that honestly just makes for an interesting scenario. Im not very well read on what is considered a "cliche" here (as in, an overused idea) but I feel a "post civil rights Democratic alligned South" is not a common "trope". So, its part "LBJ was a good President" (not a controversial statement, if you are willing to take the good with the Viet-bad) and "We want the interesting thing to happen"
Im still convinced that he wont. But he is doing better that I tought he would and I seriously dont understand why. Things are fine. The state of the country is nowhere near how it was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy decided to topple Carter. "The Government is Working" and "Good Things are Happening" is how I would describe George Romneys America. Hell, he could run with one of those as his campaign slogan. Yeah its a little bit boring, but in the end is that not what the people want? That the government ensures the welfare, happiness and security of its citizens. How has Romney not delivered on this?
Also if Romney wins either way, its gonna be Reagan vs Matthias for the soul of the Republicans. But if Romney wins the election (which he won't) whoever wins will face off against Henry Jackson.
I meant to say if he wins the primary (he will) and election (he won't)...
Really great work @President_Lincoln 
Here’s hoping Romney and the moderate right see off the more hard-right challenge...
Nah. If political polarisation is to be avoided, moderate candidates are best. As Goldwater himself said, politics is all about compromise and what’s best for America is that the Dems and Republicans are able to meet one another midway and thresh things out.
Here’s hoping Romney and the moderate right see off the more hard-right challenge...Nah. If political polarisation is to be avoided, moderate candidates are best. As Goldwater himself said, politics is all about compromise and what’s best for America is that the Dems and Republicans are able to meet one another midway and thresh things out.
No, it didn't come across as confrontational, I would think. On the contrary, it's been a very informative portrayal, and although I feel that I am not really well-informed on all of this, I think you've made a convincing point.
Funny you should bring up Goldwater, considering he was the one whose campagin was entirely based on overthrowing the Liberal consensus which had blanketed America in the 50s and early 60s and who got so damn tired of being called an extremist in the Media that he decided to throw the gauntlet down at the convention, (Extremism in Defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue). I argue that these sorts of confrontations can be good, because in the end the country can really decide which way we should go.Really great work @President_Lincoln
Nah. If political polarisation is to be avoided, moderate candidates are best. As Goldwater himself said, politics is all about compromise and what’s best for America is that the Dems and Republicans are able to meet one another midway and thresh things out.
It's a primary, only the Party faithful vote in those. And the hard-right wing probably feels cut out; they want to shoot lots of Commies, gut regulations, put Ayn Rand in textbooks, sort of thing, and Romney's too evenhanded and moderate for them.
Hopefully Romney can edge them out and make sure they don't take control of the party, or Reagan discredits them by winning the nomination and then disastrously failing to become President against a resurgent Democratic party.
I can’t begin to imagine how Reagan would handle the situation in Southeast Asia and relations with Andropov’s Soviet Union.
Poorly.
Look how close we got to nuclear annihilation in 1983 thanks to that fucking moron's brinkmanship, and remember that that was with somewhat competent help in his administration. TTL, he would be a disaster.
Well shit. Romney, Muskie, or LBJ must win! Either one of those men is fine but not Reagan!