I would hardly call Humphrey's 466 EVS to Goldwater's 72 close... Johnson would probably do even better than HHH. He'd definitely win in the Mountain States and maybe in Arkansas, Georgia, and Florida.
I a sorry, but many states were a close call: I remind you that the national score of HH was 51.1%. Sure he ended up winning almost every states, but it was far closer than the number of delegate might make you think. In a lot of states, HH only won by 1 to 3 points. In California, he won by just two thousands votes.
I just went with the general consensus, which is the Warren Report. The trajectory was nearly impossible and Oswald was a skilled marksman, according to his fellow soldiers in the Army. Maybe there was a second shooter, but to say the conspiracy theories are true is a bit far fetched.
I didn't mean that the conspiracy theories are true. What I mean is that it might have been far more difficult for LBJ to survive Dallas than what you may think. Even if he was sick, he would have been there, unless it was serious enough to be a true danger to his health.
And by the way, I would call the shot impossible: it was proven that the shot needed a wind of nearly 12 m/s for the shot to succeed, when it only was of only 1 m/s in average. The Warren Report claims that there might have been a sudden burst which would allow that shot, but how Oswald would have known that?
Multiple marksmen seems more likely when you look at the entry angle of the bullet, it's just that they didn't found the other son of a b*tch, and didn't want to lose face. This is why there are theories florishing, because that report explained nothing and went with implausible explenation to accuse a lone marksman, and seems as if they were hiding things.
3. LBJ would've only served a little over a year between November 1963 and January 1965, which is allowed by the 22nd Amendment.
Ok, thanks for this information, I didn't knew that subtlety (though I hope this rule will never have to be applied).
4. LBJ was a war-hawk and a supporter of the now untrue "Domino Theory" so he would want to stop the "spread of communism" based on his beliefs, as well as not wanting to become unpopular for letting Communism "spread," (which it didn't OTL)
But then, I think the South Vietnamese would have actually lost. Their narrative was that the US gave them weapons and training, but they were a true nation which could decide their fate themselves, and didn't want to have communism forced on them. The North Vietnam however claimed that the South was only a puppet of the US, and they were actually liberating the poor Vietnamese from foreign influence. If the US intervene, I think it will give a lot more credibility to the narative of the North, and they might rally a lot more South Vietnamese to their cause.
That means a faster unification of Vietnam, and with the North on top instead of the South after the fall of communism.
Do you think a failure in Vietnam would have stopped later foolish US interventions? Or would the hawkish faction would still be strong enough for them to happen?