Goldwater denied nomination 1964

WI Rockerfeller had won the California Primary and prevented Goldwater from being the Republican candidate.

I assume that there would have been a Dixiecrat, probably Wallace.


I am thinking that LBJ would have defeated the mainstream Republican by 6-12% points and would have won an easy Electoral college victory

Would Goldwater have won the Republcian nomination in 1968? If so how would the genreral election have gone?
 
I think Johnson beats Rockefeller. Wallace would carry much of the South and win the votes of Northern conservative Republicans. I don't know when the filing deadline was in Arizona, but maybe Goldwater runs successfully for reelection. He stays in the Senate as the conservative leader, although Ronald Reagan after 1966 provides some competition. Goldwater's forces could have helped him win in 1968, although I think Nixon would be stronger competition than Rockefeller. If Goldwater is the Republican nominee in 1968, than Humphrey wins in a landslide.
 
Whomever is nominated against LBJ loses in '64, and you'll see OTL's '64 play out in 1968. Conservatives -- having been maneuvered into accepting the "establishment moderate" in '64 -- are going to revolt, just as IOTL, and the nominee will be Goldwater or Reagan.

That, in turn, probably means that LBJ stands for re-election (and wins). Fast-forward to 1972, and you'll have five distinct political groups: (1) the anti-war left; (2) whatever's left of mainstream Democrats; (3) Dixiecrats; (4) disgruntled moderate Republicans; and (5) the far-right Goldwater/Reaganites.

With the exception of the anti-war lefties, each group will have already run for office and either lost (that is, groups 3, 4, and 5), or won despite massive public disapproval (2). How the Democrats and Republicans assemble coalitions out of those groups will be incredibly interesting....
 
That, in turn, probably means that LBJ stands for re-election (and wins).

No LBJ dropped out on March 31 long before the Republican convention.This does not change history enough that Humphrey would not be the Democratic nominee in 1968. The Goldwater forces ITTL would be more motivativatec in 1968, but Nixon would be a tougher opponent than Rockefeller. He would cut into the conservative support and he was still married to his first wife.
One interesting scenario I can think of is the Goldwater forces reject Rockefellet so the convention nominates Scranton or Romney. If it is Romney, a zealot Files a lawsuit claiming the foreign born Romney can't be elected president. The Supreme Court rules 9. - 0 that a child of a US citizen is a natural born citizens wherever he or she is born. If Barack Obama still becomes president than the birthed movement is even more fringe.
 
No LBJ dropped out on March 31 long before the Republican convention.

LBJ's decision to drop out was tactical; if Goldwater were the nominee, I think Johnson could have gotten back in at any time up to and including the convention. You think there are delegates who would have voted for Humphrey if LBJ wanted the job?

The Goldwater forces ITTL would be more motivated in 1968, but Nixon would be a tougher opponent than Rockefeller. He would cut into the conservative support and he was still married to his first wife.

Nixon will have lost as the moderate in '60 and Rockefeller as the liberal in '64, and the conservatives are going to be fuming.

One interesting scenario I can think of is the Goldwater forces reject Rockefeller so the convention nominates Scranton or Romney. If it is Romney, a zealot Files a lawsuit claiming the foreign born Romney can't be elected president. The Supreme Court rules 9. - 0 that a child of a US citizen is a natural born citizens wherever he or she is born. If Barack Obama still becomes president than the birther movement is even more fringe.

:)

If birthers could be swayed by something as pedestrian as facts, they wouldn't be birthers.
 
If Goldwater doesn't get the nomination then Reagan doesn't speak on his behalf and the GOP stays a more Moderate course for awhile.
 
LBJ was going to win regardless of who was nominated, the public wasn't in the mood for 3 presidents within a year and the overwhelming sympathy from Kennedy's assassination. I don't agree that 1968 would be a lock for the Democrats, the Vietnam War and social tensions are still going to be around.

I'm just curious as to whether or not the Conservative wing would beat out the moderates, I could see the primary being Nixon v. Goldwater. Also, without Reagan's publicity for supporting Goldwater in 1964, isn't there a good chance that his career in politics would be butterflied away?
 
If he loses the nomination in 1964, Goldwater is not going to run for president ever again. He was always wary of getting into the race in the first place. Generally all of the plans were made and carried out by other people to the extent that Goldwater was rather paranoid that people were just trying to make money on his name. If he's denied in 1964 (and hopefully he doesn't lose his Senate seat) then he will make it clear in no uncertain terms that he does not want the nomination in 1968, and the upstart conservative movement (that includes Bill Buckley) will breathe a sigh of relief as they cast about for a new lightning rod. My money would be on someone like Peter H. Dominick of Colorado.

I suspect that it will just be another case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same" and there won't be very many short term implications other than Goldwater (possibly) retaining his Senate seat.
 
If Goldwater doesn't get the nomination then Reagan doesn't speak on his behalf and the GOP stays a more Moderate course for awhile.

Goldwater's nomination in 1964 reflected structural unease in the Republican party (much like Clinton's nomination in 1992); without massive changes to the underlying electorate, those tensions are going to be there with or without Reagan. My argument is those tensions would get much worse if the conservative faction loses in '64, again, with or without Reagan. Ultimately they're going to get their man.

LBJ was going to win regardless of who was nominated, the public wasn't in the mood for 3 presidents within a year and the overwhelming sympathy from Kennedy's assassination. I don't agree that 1968 would be a lock for the Democrats, the Vietnam War and social tensions are still going to be around.

If Goldwater is the nominee in 1968, then LBJ could hold the Democratic National Convention in South Vietnam and still win 400+ electoral votes.

I'm just curious as to whether or not the Conservative wing would beat out the moderates, I could see the primary being Nixon v. Goldwater.

Well, I think you have two factors here: (1) all of the energy is going to be from the conservative wing of the party; and (2) if Rockefeller (or Scranton, or Romney, or some other moderate) is the GOP nominee in 1964 and gets crushed on the scale of OTL's Goldwater, then moderates will be perceived as "two-time losers" (Nixon and Rocky). Even more moderate supporters will be likely to give something else a try.

Again, I think this is analogous to the Democratic primary in 1992: lots of Democrats weren't exactly thrilled with the DLC, but after getting obliterated in '84 with an old-school liberal (Mondale) and beaten pretty bad in an otherwise-winnable year in '88 with Dukakis, even mainstream Democrats were (largely) willing to give the New Democrat Bill Clinton a try.

Also, without Reagan's publicity for supporting Goldwater in 1964, isn't there a good chance that his career in politics would be butterflied away?

Reagan was obviously interested in politics pre-1964, and has (to put it mildly) pretty impressive retail political skills. I think it would take more than a butterfly to dislodge his career, although no "A Time For Choosing" speech might send it in a slightly different direction.
 
Had Goldwater run in 1968 what of other candidates

Would Wallace seem irrelvant?

Would there have been a third party anti war candiate, would they have felt safe that the Republcians could not win or terrified of the risk
 
Reagan was obviously interested in politics pre-1964, and has (to put it mildly) pretty impressive retail political skills. I think it would take more than a butterfly to dislodge his career, although no "A Time For Choosing" speech might send it in a slightly different direction.

I just do not think he will have the stature to run for Gov. in '66 without the speech. My guess is he runs against Cranston for Senate in '68, likely wins since he doesn't have Rafferty's baggage.

On the other hand, if Reagan isn't running for Governor in '66, I am unsure if Hoover does him the favor of informing him that his son Michael was hanging out with the son of "Joe Bananas" Bonanno. If that goes public at the wrong time, his political career is over.

Might Goldwater be Nixon's VP in 1968?

Goldwater wouldn't want to be given a deadend job like that; I doubt Nixon could talk him into it. However, if he does, he is likely VP in a Watergate-syle situation...

---

I doubt Goldwater would pursue it on his own in '68. There would likely be a Draft Goldwater movement though. If Goldwater accepts the call, I see very little chance of Thurmond and the Southern Bloc going with Nixon.

So, Goldwater in '68 probably means a Humphrey win, if RFK is still assassinated.

Humphrey in '72 probably not going to be in a good place, likely GOP candidate Senator Reagan maybe...?

There are plenty of butterflies; TL is the only way to really flush it out.
 
Last edited:
Top