Humphrey 68, Reagan 72

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.
 

bguy

Donor
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.

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.

I'm also not sure peace in Vietnam will help Humphrey all that much. Yes, Americans will be glad the war is over, but they will also be furious that it was fought in the first place and that so many American boys died for nothing. IOTL Nixon was able to avoid too much criticism for losing Vietnam since he could pretty plausibly claim he was just cleaning up Johnson's mess and that the war was already lost by the time he took office, but I don't think Humphrey will be able to pull the same dodge. (After all if Humphrey wins in 1968 then Vietnam was exclusively a Democrat run war, which means all the blame for fighting it/losing it is going to fall on the Democrats.) 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.

And then there's the school busing issue that will really be heating up by 1972. Humphrey can claim he is anti-busing, but his words are going to sound hollow when the judges he appointed are the ones ordering desegregation busing. Plus it's going to be really easy for Reagan to outflank Humphrey on this issue, since Reagan will come out in favor of legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over busing cases, which is something that IOTL Humphrey wasn't willing to support. (Notably Humphrey voted against the Griffin Amendment IOTL.)

http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/voting-record//lccr_voting_record_92nd_congress.pdf

Add in Reagan's immense personal charisma, and it's hard to see how Humphrey wins.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 

bguy

Donor
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.

Except Ford wasn't president for a single day when U.S. forces were engaged in Vietnam; nor was he the president that signed the peace accord that the North Vietnamese just tore to shreds. That's a totally different situation than Humphrey who would have been President for at least 3 years while U.S. forces were engaged in North Vietnam and who was the president that concluded the treaty that just got eviscerated.

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.

And again Nixon could blame the other party for getting the U.S. into Vietnam. Humphrey can't do that since he was Vice President in the administration that got the U.S. into Vietnam. (And again IOTL South Vietnam didn't fall in 1973, so Nixon could pretend that he had actually gotten a good peace. That illusion is shattered when U.S. helicopters are scrambling to get out of Saigon one step ahead of the North Vietnamese Army.)

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.

Just because the war is unpopular doesn't mean that the American people are going to be ok with the party that lost it. And Humphrey (who was Vice President for the first 4 years of the war, and then President for the last three) is the face of the party that got America into that war and then lost it, so unfair or not he's the one that is going to get the blame.

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.

President Humphrey will at best have a slim majority in Congress and may lose the House outright in the 1970 midterms given the tendency of mid-term elections to go against the president's party. Thus it is doubtful he is going to have any really significant domestic achievements. He'll get the EPA, CPSC, and OSHA enacted since there was strong bi-partisan support for all those measures, and I imagine he will likely pass the child care legislation that Nixon IOTL vetoed, and those are certainly respectable achievements, but it's not anything on the scale of what FDR or LBJ achieved and thus isn't likely to move the needle much come 1972.

TimTurner said:
Simply pointing out that it would be the fourth consecutive D win in '72 isn't as indicative as you think.

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.
 
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?
 
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?

I think the argument is that voters will be suffering from voter fatigue and that President Humphrey will be unpopular because he is a Democrat and Democrats are associated with the war. The problem with this argument is that a Democrat just ended the war - again, hard to underestimate just how popular that was; it sealed the deal for Nixon's landslide in 1972 - so that would help to restore the party's popularity and allow Humphrey to focus on liberal domestic reforms like UBI, Healthcare, or other policies that Nixon attempted to implement but failed thanks to his tense relations with Congress. By 1972, SV would likely fall however most voters at this time considered Vietnam a lost cause. That is why Congress cut off funding for SV in 1975. So Humphrey's accomplishments would overshadow any attacks he gets from the right. If the GOP nominates a certain right wing extremist and former B-movie actor in 1972, the election is Humphrey's to lose.
 
Reagan in 1972 would be seen as too much of an extremist, and without the economic meltdown, the economic policy consensus he's attacking wouldn't be vulnerable. Humphrey wasn't some peacenik, he wouldn't let South Vietnam fall before the election. Unless the war goes wrong, the incumbent advantage carries Humphrey over the edge.
 
That illusion is shattered when U.S. helicopters are scrambling to get out of Saigon one step ahead of the North Vietnamese Army.

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.
 
Would Humphrey really conduct Vietnam any differently from Nixon? That's gonna result in a continual party rupture, even if the OTL McGovern-Fraser Commission is pushed off for another cycle. My guess is Reagan wins over a badly split Democratic Party and faces McGovern in '76. How Reagan conducts the 1970s would be very interesting though.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

The decision to shift to a strategy of defending "core national areas" was a disaster. The effect was similar to what happened in 1967 when Egypt ordered all of its troops to retreat behind the Suez Canal, when most had little mobility to do so and just disintegrated. A large portion of the South Vietnamese Army deployed outside of those areas to be defended had this happen, and there were desertions and joining of the refugee columns.

It also caused a massive refugee crisis as by 1975, most South Vietnamese civilians really didn't want any part of Northern rule (this was a departure from 10 years prior, when the North was seen as preferable by many in the Buddhist community, and the NVA actions in Hue had a big part in it). Basically, this was similar to what happened to France in 1940, with panic being spread by overwhelming numbers of refugees clogging the roads and preventing their use for military purposes, and causing command and control to break down as morale dropped every time the massive throngs of refugees were seen.

Now, it is true certainly that had the USAF still been deployed, it could have broken up those large NVA formations with bombing runs, just as it had been in the past. But even without American air power, had ARVN had a more cohesive defensive approach and not signified to its troops that it considered certain areas unimportant and not worth defending, the total breakdown in morale and the panic could have been avoided.

I don't think that South Vietnam was actually as doomed as some think after Paris. It was in a bad shape after American aid and air support cutbacks, true, but the Spring Offensive eventually became something that it was not really ever planned to become because of some bad command decisions. ARVN at the tactical level was not an inept force in 1975, at least among the regular army units. It is very possible that with a better defense plan, the North Vietnamese attack is contained.

That does not, however, mean that there would be serious consequences for North Vietnam violating the ceasefire. The South was kind of a pariah state, even among those who publicly supported it.
 
Last edited:
Top