No RFK winning the presiddncy in 1972? Like personally, I just don’t think he would have won the 1968 election personally, unless McCarthy didn’t run. Certainly if RFK had run after McCarthy announced a run, it would probably have felt like a betrayal to McCarthy supporters and divided the anti-war faction of the Democrats, the very people who eventually helped RFK win in ‘72.In 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy was pressured to run for President by many anti-war liberals. Yet Kennedy chose not to enter the campaign, and instead endorsed Eugene McCarthy following the New Hampshire primary. What might've happened had RFK decided to run for President in 1968?
Probably loses to Edmund Muskie. If not him, given how close '68 was, HHH might be given another go.Reagan loses reelection to someone else in '72.
OOC: I’m pretty sure it’s already been established in this scenario that Reagan somehow won in ‘68 and RFK won in ‘72. I assume RFK probably gets reelected in ‘76.Well, it's entirely possible that Nixon could've been re-elected had he been up against McCarthy or McGovern. As for Humphrey, he was too divisive a figure to even win the nomination let alone the election. In retrospect, Kennedy was the only one who could've beaten Nixon thanks to his charisma, ability to unite the Democratic base, and reach out to independent voters.
OOC: Who wins the 1976 election in this scenario?
OOC: Reagan hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread until now. As for 1976, due to the poor economy and the Fall of Saigon RFK would be in big trouble. His best hope is that the GOP nominates Reagan and he can succeed where Carter failed in portraying Reagan as a right wing extremist.
OOC: View attachment 434136
I agree that it's really silly to imply RFK not running in 1968 would somehow lead to Reagan winning that year, but it was in fact mentioned.
OOC: Sorry, but I'm ignoring the poster who wrote that Reagan wins in 1968. So I didn't see the post until I clicked "show ignored content."
OOC: You're good, I assumed as much, just didn't want you to be out of the loop on your own thread.
As far as Kennedy goes, I think he would've had a great shot in 68' had he entered before McCarthy. When RFK hesitated, it opened the door for someone else to run as a "protest" Democrat of sorts, and ultimately that's what happened. It immediately took the wind out of any potential RFK campaign, so he was wise to wait until 72; he rightly defeated Reagan and showed America what a right wing extremist he really was, smile and charm aside. His landslide victory in 76, and the mandate it gave him after a narrow 72 victory, laid the foundation for Democratic policy up until the early 2000s, when the issue of abortion finally came to a boil. RFK and his successors within the party managed to keep a lid on it for a while, criticizing Roe but agreeing to respect the Supreme Court, but it was never going to be that way forever.
OOC: While I do agree that Reagan somehow winning in ‘68 without RFK running is indeed unlikely, I’m not entirely sure it’s outright impossible. Assuming LBJ still drops out, RFK not being in the race may have meant Nelson Rockefeller decides to get in the race earlier, which could in turn means the 1968 RNC could have ended up a full contested convention, with Reagan becoming a potential compromise candidate like he originally intended. After that, you just need Reagan to somehow win the general election and he’d get the presidency.I agree that it's really silly to imply RFK not running in 1968 would somehow lead to Reagan winning that year, but it was in fact mentioned.
OOC: How would Reagan be a compromise in this scenario? He's to the right of Rocky AND Nixon. If anything, if it were a brokered convention Nixon would be a compromise.OOC: While I do agree that Reagan somehow winning in ‘68 without RFK running is indeed unlikely, I’m not entirely sure it’s outright impossible. Assuming LBJ still drops out, RFK not being in the race may have meant Nelson Rockefeller decides to get in the race earlier, which could in turn means the 1968 RNC could have ended up a full contested convention, with Reagan becoming a potential compromise candidate like he originally intended. After that, you just need Reagan to somehow win the general election and he’d get the presidency.
So while it’s certainly unlikely, and basically requires a lot of factors going right for it to work, it’s not completely impossible.
OOC: How would Reagan be a compromise in this scenario? He's to the right of Rocky AND Nixon. If anything, if it were a brokered convention Nixon would be a compromise.
OOC: While I do agree that Reagan somehow winning in ‘68 without RFK running is indeed unlikely, I’m not entirely sure it’s outright impossible. Assuming LBJ still drops out, RFK not being in the race may have meant Nelson Rockefeller decides to get in the race earlier, which could in turn means the 1968 RNC could have ended up a full contested convention, with Reagan becoming a potential compromise candidate like he originally intended. After that, you just need Reagan to somehow win the general election and he’d get the presidency.
So while it’s certainly unlikely, and basically requires a lot of factors going right for it to work, it’s not completely impossible.
If he ran, he might have won the presidency instead of crushing Charles Goodell in the 1970 election. Yes, THAT Charles Goodell - the crooked NBA commissioner who tried to rig outcomes and killed the league. Would be worse, but the ABA absorbed some of the iconic franchises (Knicks, Celtics, Sixers, Lakers, etc) when the NBA folded.