What if Hubert Humphrey had won the 1968 election and Reagan proceeded to win in 1972?
Reagan could win the nomination in '72 if he wants it, but remember that in 1980 despite Carter's unpopularity Reagan was trailing him in the polls before the debates. Reagan was widely seen as a right wing extremist who many party leaders thought would not be able to win on a national basis. Had Carter outperformed Reagan in the debates, he would have been reelected. This is while the economy is in the tank and his efforts to release the hostages in Iran have failed. So for Reagan to win in 1972, not only do things have to be going terribly vis-a-vis the economy and foreign policy, but HHH has to bomb in the debates. I find this unlikely since Humphrey would end the war (even if he does it on Nixon's schedule), and the economy would still be strong. Also while Humphrey wasn't the greatest speaker, he could hold his own against JFK in 1960 and I'm sure he could do the same against Reagan.
Also depending on how quickly Humphrey pulls U.S. forces out of South Vietnam, Saigon might well fall before the 1972 election. (North Vietnam is likely to make a major push in 1972 on the assumption that Humphrey won't be willing/able to reengage in an election year.) IOTL Nixon in '72 could at least somewhat plausibly claim to be on the brink of a honorable peace, but ITTL if Saigon falls then that illusion is shattered and it is unambiguous that the United States lost in Vietnam. Being seen as the first president to lose a war is really going to hurt Humphrey's candidacy.
It's easier of a task for Humphrey in '72, for reasons pointed out by @Amadeus. Simply pointing out that it would be the fourth consecutive D win in '72 isn't as indicative as you think.OTOH by 1972 the Democrats have been in power for 12 years, so Humphrey is going to be facing pretty strong headwinds in trying for another term. Party fatigue makes it a lot harder for a party to win a fourth presidential term in a row than a second.
Ford almost won in 1976 despite SV falling a year earlier, and that was with an awful economy. Had the economy been good (as it was in 1972) Ford would have won and so would HHH in 1972 even if SV falls before then.
Also, Humphrey wouldn't have lost Vietnam, neither did Nixon. Rather, HHH would have disengaged from an unpopular war he inherited. This made Nixon popular in 1973 so there's no reason why Humphrey wouldn't receive the same bounce.
Vietnam was a very unpopular war by 1968 (not just with college students, a majority of Americans wanted withdrawal after Tet), so even if SV falls early the popularity boost provided by ending the war would offset the negatives. I disagree that Humphrey would have recieved some sort of backlash after the war ends.
Vietnam wasn't his fault and voters would be happy the war is over. They would want to heal and move on as the eventually did in OTL. Also, after 1969 Humphrey would no doubt be able to claim credit for many domestic achievements given his skills in Congress. So come 1972 he would probably beat Reagan. Not by Nixon v. McGovern levels, but Clinton v. Dole would probably be a more accurate comparison.
TimTurner said:Simply pointing out that it would be the fourth consecutive D win in '72 isn't as indicative as you think.
It's not necessarily very difficult to pull off a three-win streak (or even a four-win streak) - it just requires a good dice roll. A four-win streak also likely depends quite a lot on incumbency also - without that, it becomes a lot harder. It's often harder to defeat an incumbent. Bush in '88 achieved a three-win streak. And if an incumbent is then popular enough they can be re-elected to a second term (and a fourth for their party). Bush could have won in '92. Are you arguing he was ordained to lose his re-election bid the moment he was first elected?Do you really think it's just a coincidence that in the last 69 years, the same party has only won 3 presidential elections in a row one time, and has never won 4 presidential elections in a row? It's very difficult for the same party to win more than two presidential elections in a row and that's proven true even during good economic times. (After all the economy was good in 2000 and decent in 2016 and yet the incumbent party still failed on both of those occasions to win even a third term.) Thus for Humphrey to win not just a third term for his party but a fourth term and to do so after presiding over America's first lost war and while his party is on the wrong end of a emotionally charged social issue is a really, really tall order.
It's not necessarily very difficult to pull off a three-win streak (or even a four-win streak) - it just requires a good dice roll. A four-win streak also likely depends quite a lot on incumbency also - without that, it becomes a lot harder. It's often harder to defeat an incumbent. Bush in '88 achieved a three-win streak. And if an incumbent is then popular enough they can be re-elected to a second term (and a fourth for their party). Bush could have won in '92. Are you arguing he was ordained to lose his re-election bid the moment he was first elected?
That illusion is shattered when U.S. helicopters are scrambling to get out of Saigon one step ahead of the North Vietnamese Army.
Keep in mind that the NVA victory in 1975 was by no means guaranteed. The South had a lot of manpower in the field, but they deployed their forces in the Central Highlands in a haphazard manner that made them vulnerable to an infiltration style attack. The initial North Vietnamese offensive was supposed to be limited in its aims and only grew into the kind of final drive once ARVN seemed to break in its morale and cohesiveness. The Viet Cong was a spent force after Tet and really could not significantly contribute in any sort of strategic offensive.In OTL the evac was botched because Ford's Ambassador in Saigon kept delaying the operation until the 11th hour. He didn't even take the NV threat to Saigon seriously until it was almost too late. A different representative with basic competence who manages the evacuation properly (e.g., actually prepare beforehand, make sure the whole thing goes down as quickly and efficiently as possible) could avoid the disaster we saw in 1975. Not to mention that a different President could possibly mean a better peace agreement that actually lasts longer than two years. Many options were discussed by U.S. policymakers during the 1968-1973 period, and I find it very hard to believe that we couldn't have done any better than Nixon & Kissinger at the peace table.