Humphrey 68 Wilson 1970 could EVERYTHING change

Suppose Agnew's criminality came out in the week before the 1968 election.

My recollection, admitdely as a teen, is that Harrold Wilson had run on the basis of solving the balance of payments (which devaluation had largely achieved) however there was fluke set of figures in the week before the election becuase of the one off of imports of 747 jets, they might have gone into the following month's figures.

My theory

I think Humphrey holds in 72 and Muskie loses in 1972 based on general feeling of one party in power for too long

Ditto Wilson or maybe someone else lose a 1975 election

Conservatives get the blame for the problems of the 1970s

The 1980s are progressives,

Much less shifit of money from wages to shareholders and CEOs
 
And then there'll be a land of milk and honey; and the evil conservatives will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

In all seriousness Wilson in 1970 probably means Powell takes over as Tory leader and has a good chance of winning at the next election. Plus HHH in '68 and if he wins in '72 may mean that the '77-'81 term is not the poisioner chalice. Plus also remember that Humphrey was rather conservative socially (especially on abortion.)
 
Plus HHH in '68 and if he wins in '72 may mean that the '77-'81 term is not the poisioner chalice. Plus also remember that Humphrey was rather conservative socially (especially on abortion.)

If the '77-'81 term isn't a poisoned chalice, we'll have one sometime in the 1980s, if a Republican beats Muskie in 76 and they get re elected, they could preside over the poisoned chalice in their second term (81-85 term) or whoever wins in 1984 will be a one term wonder. Personally I think even if economically, things go well in the late 70s, Iran still might blow up as OTL, so that could make 76 a poisoned chalice alone.

Either way, we'll see a Conservative realignment in the U.S. in a HHH wins in 68 (and 72 if we assume he gets re elected, which to me is 50/50) scenario as early as 1984 but no later than 2000, although without someone as Charismatic as Reagan to sell conservatism, it may not be as conservative.
 
Plus HHH in '68 and if he wins in '72 may mean that the '77-'81 term is not the poisioner chalice.

That's very true, so we get a much more delayed conservative realignment, and probably with someone less reactionary as Reagan.

Plus also remember that Humphrey was rather conservative socially (especially on abortion.)

Yeah. That's true. For his generation, he was ultra-liberal, but he would not be liked much by the New Left until he ends the Vietnam War.
 
Top