Bobby v. Ronnie: Destination WH

Have RFK and Reagan slug it out for the Presidency with a 1968 POD. Bonus if both serve, double bonus if one succeeds the other. Preferably with neither being incumbents during either the 1976 or 1980 elections. That would likely be the most unpredictable race since OTL '68 or '92.

Keeping in mind the famous 1967 'Nam debate where Reagan was the clear winner...
 
To start us off, how would the rhetorical tone be? Policy-wonkish? Hard-hitting? Rovian/personal? Or simply inspirational from both candidates?
 
Hmm... Well, let's say RFK isn't assassinated in '68 - that's our first step.

In the rest of the primaries, RFK narrowly loses each one, and does not win the Democratic nomination - he loses to HHH. HHH loses to Nixon, as per OTL, and we have a Nixon presidency. Without butterflies, we'll say Agnew still resigns, as does Nixon, and Gerald Ford becomes 38th President and runs in '76. Something happens - I can't think of what, unfortunately - where RFK does not run for president, and Jimmy Carter still wins the Democratic nomination and beats Gerry Ford. Basically, this part is basically relying on RFK not changing politics completely, which may be ASB, but this is just a rough draft idea here.

In 1980, with the Carter presidency failing, RFK challenges Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination, and knowing RFK and his charm and Carter's unpopularity, RFK manages to unseat President Carter, and easily, Ronald Reagan is the Republican nominee. Voila, an RFK vs. RR match in 1980, with no incumbents. This part is completely plausible - but the two problems with this scenario is: 1) How the devil does RFK not run for president in 1976? and 2) How the devil do we get him not to majorly affect the years 1968-1979?

EDIT

Alright, I just got an awesome idea.

First off, Richard Nixon wins the gubernatorial election of 1962 in California. However, the Watts Riots of 1965 turn out horribly under Governor Nixon, and Nixon does something to lose the support of many Californians (not too hard, really). In 1966, Governor Nixon, with a 35%-or-lower approval rating in California, realizes he cannot win re-election as Governor and declines to run. Ronald Reagan campaigns well and captures the GOP nomination and endorsement for Governor that year, and beats whoever the Democrats nominate and endorse. Thus, Richard Nixon is out of the political arena for '68, and Reagan is in.

It probably won't be too hard for Reagan to win the Republican nomination in 1968, but it won't be easy either. But he does, for scenario's sake. RFK also is able to beat LBJ and Eugene McCarthy in the Democratic primaries and narrowly wins the Democratic nomination. Thus, you have an RFK vs. Ronald Reagan campaign in 1968.
 
Last edited:
He can't lose any of the '68 primaries except Oregon, because a loss in CA, giving 192 delegates to Gene, would destroy his political career. I specified 1976 as a possibility. And of course he would affect domestic politics, particularly after being re-elected to the Senate in 1970. What Bobby needs are domestic bipartisan credentials, because he's loathed by Republicans and mistrusted by independents. Liberal Democrats dislike him because he's a social conservative, moderates are in his corner, and conservative Democrats don't like his "anti-business" reputation. Expect a decent shot at the culture wars for the Democratic Party. Social liberals will sit out the campaign, because there's nowhere to go.

I'm also interested in how the campaign itself progresses. You've got two photogenic candidates, but Reagan comes across much better on TV. Any OTL RFK stump speech will tell you why. As you know, Howard Dean-wank on acoustics (jabbing finger, high voice, forceful manner), which ironically was well-received by his live audience, but caused suburban perceptions of demagoguery. Newsweek even compared one particularly noisy rally to the Hitler Jugend. I kid you not. Who's the demagogue again?
 
Actually, I'm going to try a different format than usual: more "novelesque" , somewhat like Historico, Thande and His Imperial Majesty.
 
Since I'm fairly certain of FoF's trajectory, which RFK-Reagan battle would everyone prefer I do, other than the long-term TL coming this summer: Right Honourable Caesareans?

1968, 1972 or 1976? 1980 is in effect ASB due to 1976 and because it's RFK's best-before date.
 
In the TL I'm hoping to do some time, which I'm only beginning to research; Sirhan Sirhan assassinates Nixon instead of RFK in 1968, with his diary reading "Richard Nixon must be killed, Richard Nixon must be assassinated, DICK MUST DIE!!!!".

I know he killed RFK in OTL because of his support of Israel but I also believe that that was just a superficial motive put in place of Sirhan's more complex disturbed mentality. He could have just as easily picked up a random newspaper article where Nixon utters some small comment in support of Israel and posted that in his diary, venting all of his insanity on Nixon instead of Kennedy. So anyway, the contest for the Republican nomination is fought between Reagan and Rockefeller, which Reagan wins. RFK narrowly wins the Democratic nomination against Hubert Humphrey and the election of 1968 is RFK vs. Reagan.
 
Hmm... Well, let's say RFK isn't assassinated in '68 - that's our first step. In the rest of the primaries, RFK narrowly loses each one, and does not win the Democratic nomination - he loses to HHH.

He can't lose any of the '68 primaries except Oregon, because a loss in CA, giving 192 delegates to Gene, would destroy his political career.


make it even simpler. RFK still gets shot but doesnt die. He's 'merely' severly injured and has to withdraw in order to recuperate. maybe he'd even give up his Senate job temprarily.
 
Unfortunately, that conflicts with what the doctors said. Giving 1 inch clearance for shrapnel to hit bone, not brain would require two weeks of hospitalization and not much more. As for Israel, it was when RFK donned a skullcap outside an Oregon synagogue that Sirhan purchased a box of .22 ammo. Though it was not well-known at the time, Bobby would be closer to George Bush Sr. than Joe Lieberman on Mideast issues. What he mentioned was tepid support for F-4 deliveries in the wake of the '67 war.
 
Unfortunately, that conflicts with what the doctors said. Giving 1 inch clearance for shrapnel to hit bone, not brain would require two weeks of hospitalization and not much more.

so give a foot of clearance and get shot near the spine requiring months of physical therapy.

just as plausible as Sirhan missing entirely.
 
That goes without saying. Security was nonexistent. You'd have thought someone would've clued in with an unauthorized person in a restricted area asking when the resident VIP would arrive. Ironically, he hated shortcuts. But even easier is a slight adjustment of the head angle. That gives you the 1 inch clearance for the round to hit bone, not brain tissue. Once that happened, there was little to be done but wait.
 
Here's everything you need to know.

A sneak preview of the updated prologue. Changes from OTL bolded.
Just at that moment, Kennedy sneezed. One .22 round hit the kitchen wall, another hit Kennedy in the right armpit and passed through his shoulder blade before exiting through the back and impacting a press photographer. Just as Kennedy raised his left arm, another round entered the skull through his right ear and penetrated, coming within millimeters of his brain before lodging in the rear. He covered his face and fell back onto the floor, with blood flowing freely from both wounds. He was heard to hoarsely whisper “is everyone OK” before slipping out of consciousness.
 
I read an AH story a long time ago that had RFK living. HHH then changes his Vietnam policy and wins the nomination. He takes RFK as his running mate. The Humphrey Kennedy anti war ticket unites the party and wins. I find this scenario very plausible. I would take it further that in the bad economy of 1976, Vice President Kennedy loses. His opponent could be Reagan. Kennedy makes a come back four years later. With the even worse economy and the hostage crisis, he defeats President Reagan.
 
Bobby wouldn't accept being Veep for the same reasons Hillary didn't IOTL. He'd turned it down in '64 not just because of his mutual loathing of LBJ, but because it would be like LBJ: seen and not heard, not being Deputy President as he was for Jack. I don't see Reagan the superhawk (as he was then seen) bungling Iran, and Reagan would back the Shah much more than Carter ever did.
 
I don't see Reagan the superhawk (as he was then seen) bungling Iran, and Reagan would back the Shah much more than Carter ever did.


not wanting to get offtrack here but...so what ? The Shah is still the Shah the revolution still comes. what's your thinking ? t
 
It can be avoided if US support for Iran is made conditional on reforms and a democratic transition. I did it in my first TL, RFK Renewed. But as you said, that's Off Topic.
 
Top