Goldwater Denied Nomination

For a variety of structural and more personal reasons Senator Barry oldwater was the leading candidate for the Republican nomination. And indeed he was nominated historically. But, no matter the strength of the Conservative Movement, plans can fail, and the seemingly stronger candidate can lose. So what if for a variety of possible reasons, despite seeking the nomination, Goldwater was not the Republican standard bearer in 1964? Say Rockefeller narrowly wins in California. From what I remember reading that would be enough to at least deny Goldwater a first ballot victory, leading to a contested convention in which either Gov. Scranton or Rockefeller himself could emerge as the nominee. Now from what I have read the california delegation alone would not be enough to hand Governor Rockfeller a first ballot victory. In any event, the conservatives fail to make their man the nominee. Where might political history go from here. Would Reagan still appear at the convention? Would conservatives react differently to Nixon here? Or make more demands on him?
 
Goldwater stays the leader of the conservative movement. He runs again in 1968. With Vietnam and the riots his supporters are more energized. I don't know if Reagan give a speech for Rockefeller, Scranton or Romney. This could butterfly away or at least delay his political career. ITTL George Wallace runs as third party candidate and wins much of the South. I am glad to be reunited with Glass Onion. How's college going or have you graduated yet? I don't know how long ago I read on DW about your plans to attend a small college in Ohio.
 
When the Goldwater movement falters, Rockefeller is not seen as an acceptable candidate. As a compromise we have a Romney-Goldwater ticket, which still loses.
 
Why not Scranton? After all at least before Calfornia, he had more delegates than Rockefeller. And he is probably slightly more acceptable to the Goldwater delegates than the Governor of New York. Assuming changing California alone does not put him within striking distance of the nomination, Rockefeller probably throws his support to Scranton, since stopping Goldwater is the important thing. I doubt Goldwater would accept the lower half of the ticket.
 
Why not Scranton? After all at least before Calfornia, he had more delegates than Rockefeller. And he is probably slightly more acceptable to the Goldwater delegates than the Governor of New York. Assuming changing California alone does not put him within striking distance of the nomination, Rockefeller probably throws his support to Scranton, since stopping Goldwater is the important thing. I doubt Goldwater would accept the lower half of the ticket.

Agreed. There is some chance that Rockefeller could get the nomination (much more than Goldwater accepting the #2 slot with anyone) but Scranton-Mr. Obscure is the most likely ticket.

And it loses. However the coat tails are much less with the Democrats gaining only a dozen seats in the House
 
One thing's clear: If the GOP doesn't nominate one of two Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act the year of its passage, they'll be much less likely to turn into... well, less known for civil rights.
 
LBJ had insanely high approval ratings, there's just a dozen less gains or so.

Goldwater runs in 1968, and knowing that, LBJ might well run again.

One thing's clear: If the GOP doesn't nominate one of two Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act the year of its passage, they'll be much less likely to turn into... well, less known for civil rights.

I wouldn't say that exactly. They lost in a landslide in 1964, but adopted those positions to great success in 1966.
 
I wouldn't say that exactly. They lost in a landslide in 1964, but adopted those positions to great success in 1966.

The dominant wing of the GOP, prior to the 1964 RNC, was fairly progressive on things like Civil Rights -- after all, aside from Goldwater and Tower, every GOP Senator voted for the CRA. However well they can make that work for them, if they pass up the strategy in the short term, it will mean they stand a better chance for a better image long term.
 
LBJ had insanely high approval ratings, there's just a dozen less gains or so.

Goldwater runs in 1968, and knowing that, LBJ might well run again.



I wouldn't say that exactly. They lost in a landslide in 1964, but adopted those positions to great success in 1966.

How would Nixon deal with a Goldwater 1968 campaign for the nomination? Presumably,Goldwater supporters would not take his defeat at the convention well, and would be all the more energized for a fight four years later. That probably makes him a far more formidable opponent for Nixon than either Reagan or Romney were historically. This all of course assumes Nixon would still seek the nomination here.
 
The dominant wing of the GOP, prior to the 1964 RNC, was fairly progressive on things like Civil Rights -- after all, aside from Goldwater and Tower, every GOP Senator voted for the CRA. However well they can make that work for them, if they pass up the strategy in the short term, it will mean they stand a better chance for a better image long term.

Image? Republicans dominated the presidency in the forty years between 1968 and 2008, and you care about how such policies look to us in 2013?

How would Nixon deal with a Goldwater 1968 campaign for the nomination? Presumably,Goldwater supporters would not take his defeat at the convention well, and would be all the more energized for a fight four years later. That probably makes him a far more formidable opponent for Nixon than either Reagan or Romney were historically. This all of course assumes Nixon would still seek the nomination here.

Nixon barely won the nomination IOTL on the first ballot. His margin was less than Goldwater's. If Goldwater runs again, Nixon loses, given that he nearly lost to Reagan IOTL.
 
Nixon barely won the nomination IOTL on the first ballot. His margin was less than Goldwater's. If Goldwater runs again, Nixon loses, given that he nearly lost to Reagan IOTL.

I have a feeling that Goldwater wouldn't run for the Presidency again, given '68 would be the one chance he would have of getting into the Senate again (having already decided against running in '64 to seek the nomination), or he would have to wait, at the very least, until '74.
 
Image? Republicans dominated the presidency in the forty years between 1968 and 2008, and you care about how such policies look to us in 2013?

Never said it was the most important part of this thread; just that the GOP is less likely to get themselves in a demographic straightjacket in the process. (Now they'd stand an even better chance if Goldwater himself had, however reservedly, supported the CRA, but that's another story...)
 

I have a feeling that Goldwater wouldn't run for the Presidency again, given '68 would be the one chance he would have of getting into the Senate again (having already decided against running in '64 to seek the nomination), or he would have to wait, at the very least, until '74.

Then this means ITTL Johnson wins in 64 and Nixon wins in 68. I think we could have the same OTL line up of presidents. In such a case a Romney nomination is interesting because, if he wins the nomination there would be a lawsuit about the foreign born candidate's qualifications as president and 9-0 supreme court ruling that as a child of US citizens, he is natural born. This would strangle the birther movement if Obama still wins the 2008 nomination.
 

I have a feeling that Goldwater wouldn't run for the Presidency again, given '68 would be the one chance he would have of getting into the Senate again (having already decided against running in '64 to seek the nomination), or he would have to wait, at the very least, until '74.

I absolutely agree with this assessment. Assuming he loses the nomination at or after the California primary, Goldwater will have just given up his beloved senate seat in pursuit of a nomination that he did not want for an office he did not believe he could win. I imagine that he will, in his very dyspeptic way, tell off the William Buckley and co. and plan on making his 1968 comeback.

If in 1964 Wallace pulls away some of those deep-south states that went for Goldwater, I think he'll be emboldened to challenge Johnson more directly in 1968 by running against him in the primaries. Looking at the primary schedule I see three possible wins in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Florida. (The first two states are ones in which he performed quite well against Johnson surrogates in 1964, the latter is a neighbor to Alabama which leads me to believe he'd have a regional boost.) He'd have enough support in the rest of the states to skew the results (particularly in California and Pennsylvania). The result could be a convention in which Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, AND George Wallace are all competing for the nomination. Wallace probably wouldn't win and would know that his chances were slim, so I bet he'd be trying to play king-maker. And if you thought things were bad in Chicago IOTL, just wait until Wallace or his supporters get on stage.

I could imagine that Reagan would still give speeches for whoever the nominee was ITTL unless it was Rockefeller. I doubt he would have a problem speaking on behalf of Scranton or Romney, though, and he may still gain notoriety for bridging the gap between the moderates and the conservatives if he's willing to work with the other side. I imagine it would be enough to get him the California governorship in 1966.

I'd be looking, however, at Nixon as the parallel to 2008 Hillary Clinton: the candidate who seems to have the nomination sewed up but for the efforts of a dedicated anti-establishment force. The candidate wouldn't matter much to them so long as he's sufficiently conservative. I imagine as in 1968 the conservative wing is going to have created a similar campaign machine to 1964 and, like in 1964, will start campaigning on behalf of a candidate without really getting him on board first. My bet, as I've mentioned a few times on this board, would be Senator Pete Dominick of Colorado who had the conservative credentials and was infinitely more electable than Goldwater; if not him then maybe Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio who hasn't been tainted by Kent State or allegations of corruption yet. I think it could legitimately be a close nomination if the conservative forces hold onto, and redouble, their positions of strength between 1964 and 1968. Nixon may be denied the nomination at the convention, having failed to cow the conservatives.
 
George Wallace isn't going to make a run for the Democratic nomination, especially considering he would be taking on what appeared to be a relatively popular Democratic President which would seem a losing battle. He likely makes the OTL choices he came across and runs as an Independent in '68 as well, though possibly with even more momentum from his '64 showing.

Peter Dominick is the only candidate other than Reagan I can see making use of the Conservative wave; Jim Rhodes, while he entertained Presidential ambitions, never seriously considered running a campaign, and preferred the old-school format of being nominated outside of the primaries. Such a move would have created significant drag on a campaign for the presidency, much as it did for Humphrey in the initial months. The question is though, do the Conservative Delegates lead by Thurmond move to California Favorite-Son Ronald Reagan, who would seem the stronger candidate compared to Dominick, or to Colorado Senator Peter Dominick, who had actually challenged Nixon in the primaries?
 
George Wallace isn't going to make a run for the Democratic nomination, especially considering he would be taking on what appeared to be a relatively popular Democratic President which would seem a losing battle. He likely makes the OTL choices he came across and runs as an Independent in '68 as well, though possibly with even more momentum from his '64 showing.


Respectfully, I disagree. In this alternate timeline we've created where he's already run as an independent in 1964 and won a couple or handful of states against Johnson, Wallace is probably even more likely to challenge the president in a primary. He wouldn't have to start planning it out as early as 1966, either. In 1964 he did well in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Indiana in a campaign that he ran on a whim. If he even started planning as early as McCarthy did (and given his notoriety, he wouldn't have to start even that early), then Wallace would be a serious force in the primary race. He'll be guaranteed the delegations of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana, and he may be able to get Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia, too. (Texas is, for obvious reasons, not an option.)

That's not much of a position from which to win the Big Prize, but it is a good spot from which to have a serious hand in the outcome of the convention. Wallace will be able to get plenty of concessions in exchange for not staging a walk-out. He was always willing to work with the establishment when push came to shove, so I believe he'd be most receptive to a Humphrey nomination so long as he got something out of it. (Either a judicial nomination, Attorney General, or the bottom of the ticket depending on how strong a position he made for himself.)

My point is that there's really no reason for him not to go big in 1968. There will be some form of consolation prize waiting for him at the end of the race, and that's more than he'll get if he runs third party and loses some of his base to a conservative Republican in the general.


Peter Dominick is the only candidate other than Reagan I can see making use of the Conservative wave; Jim Rhodes, while he entertained Presidential ambitions, never seriously considered running a campaign, and preferred the old-school format of being nominated outside of the primaries. Such a move would have created significant drag on a campaign for the presidency, much as it did for Humphrey in the initial months. The question is though, do the Conservative Delegates lead by Thurmond move to California Favorite-Son Ronald Reagan, who would seem the stronger candidate compared to Dominick, or to Colorado Senator Peter Dominick, who had actually challenged Nixon in the primaries?

That I do not know. Reagan may seem like the stronger candidate, but if he flubs things like he did in OTL 1968 then I'd imagine he's going to actually be in a weaker position than Dominick by the time of the convention. Even if the Thurmond-ites vocally support Reagan, it's possible that Reagan would go so far as to throw his support behind Dominick at a deadlocked convention if Dominick, Buckley, White, et al can keep the conservatives from fracturing. I doubt that would mean a nomination for vice-president, but it would certainly improve Reagan's prospects in four or eight years.
 
Top