Humphrey Assassinated in 1968

I was getting into the 1968 election today, and two WI's crossed my mind:

  • Both Humphrey and RFK are assassinated before the Democratic National Convention. Does McCarthy get the nomination? Does LBJ re-enter the race and get the nomination? Someone else? Also, what are the effects of a sitting vice president getting assassinated, even in a landscape when political and social leaders seemed to be getting assassinated on a regular basis, and social unrest was boiling over?
  • The second what if, is what if Humphrey instead of RFK, was assassinated before the DNC? Is the race Kennedy's, or, as above, does Johnson try and step in and steal the nomination? Also as above, what are the effects of a sitting vice president getting assassinated in this environment?
For both of these, how might this alter the general election?
 
Hi there. I’m writing a timeline with Hubert Humphrey. It’s called the bright sunshine. It’s coming along nicely and I hope you’ll read it. But on to the questions.

1: It’s hard to say. In real life, Johnson wanted to re enter at the last second and swoop up the nomination but he didn’t because his safety wasn’t guaranteed. But some of the riots we’re in part due to Humphrey which was itself linked to Johnson. So Johnson might but Chicago gets really nasty. Our timeline is a mild scuffle by comparison.

2. I think that Johnson wanted to be safe but his hatred of Kennedy came before his safety. Johnson would definitely swoop in even if it was dangerous if only to deny Kennedy a nomination.

Also, if Humphrey died, a successor would be chosen at the convention. Maybe Edmund Muskie as in our timeline. Maybe a hawk like Scoop Jackson. The reaction would be mixed. On one hand Humphrey was a long time politician and respected in the party. But on the other hand, he was seen as nothing more but a stooge for Johnson. It wouldn’t incite riots and probably would’ve given democrats a slight sympathy boost but Nixon was assured a win if Johnson ran. For the general it depends:
If Johnson is it, no way. He was hated and even if he stopped the bombing earlier, Nixon would still sabotage and Johnson would be seen as winning using politics, dirty politics at that. If Kennedy, it’ll be closer than Our timeline. I can see it going to the house even. But Kennedy would come out on top. McCartgy is hard to say due to less focus being on him. I can see him winning if he actually tried more than our timeline where he really didn’t care. But it’s not out for McCarthy to win. I hope I answered everything. Ask me again if you still have questions. Peace.
 
Actually, I once posted a related scenario in soc.history.what-if: In OTL Humphrey intentionally delayed announcing his presidential candidacy until it was too late to file for the primaries. His advisors convinced him that entering primaries was not only unnecessary but too risky. But suppose Humphrey replied "Maybe I can win the nominaton without entering any primaries, but there will be a lot of resentment, I will be portrayed as the candidate of the 'bosses' and 'smoke-filled rooms,' and the McCarthy and Kennedy backers might not vote for me in November. Besides, I am convinced I can win in the primaries--all I need is a plurality, I get old-fashioned labor Democrats while RFK and McCarthy are splitting the 'new politics' vote." Is it really that implausible to think that Humphrey is confident enough of his abilities as a campaigner to believe that he can win *pluralities* in a few primaries? Including perhaps even California, where he did have the support of Pat Brown and San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto?

So Humphrey announces his candidacy early enough to enter the California primary. There is a three-way televised debate between McCarthy, Kennedy, and Humphrey, in which the three candidates are asked their views on
(among other issues) Israel and the Middle East. All three give strongly pro-Israel statements. Sirhan Sirhan, watching the debate on TV, is outraged and vows to kill *whichever* candidate wins. When on primary night he learns that Humphrey is projected the winner (with 35 percent of the vote to 32.5 each for Kennedy and McCarthy) and is about to give a victory speech, Sirhan heads for Humphrey campaign headquarters and fatally shoots the vice-president...

The most likely outcome in that case is an RFK nomination IMO. He was at least acceptable--in the absence of Humphrey--to many old-time Democrats like Richard J. Daley in a way McCarthy could never be.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I once posted a related scenario in soc.history.what-if: In OTL Humphrey intentionally delayed announcing his presidential candidacy until it was too late to file for the primaries. His advisors convinced him that entering primaries was not only unnecessary but too risky. But suppose Humphrey replied "Maybe I can win the nominaton without entering any primaries, but there will be a lot of resentment, I will be portrayed as the candidate of the 'bosses' and 'smoke-filled rooms,' and the McCarthy and Kennedy backers might not vote for me in November. Besides, I am convinced I can win in the primaries--all I need is a plurality, I get old-fashioned labor Democrats while RFK and McCarthy are splitting the 'new politics' vote." Is it really that implausible to think that Humphrey is confident enough of his abilities as a campaigner to believe that he can win *pluralities* in a few primaries? Including perhaps even California, where he did have the support of Pat Brown and San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto?

So Humphrey announces his candidacy early enough to enter the California primary. There is a three-way televised debate between McCarthy, Kennedy, and Humphrey, in which the three candidates are asked their views on
(among other issues) Israel and the Middle East. All three give strongly pro-Israel statements. Sirhan Sirhan, watching the debate on TV, is outraged and vows to kill *whichever* candiate wins. When on primary night he learns that Humphrey is projected the winner (with 35 percent of the vote to 32.5 each for Kennedy and McCarthy) and is about to give a victory speech, Sirhan heads for Humphrey campaign headquarters and fatally shoots the vice-president...

The most likely outcome in that case is an RFK nomination IMO. He was at least acceptable--in the absence of Humphrey--to many old-time Democrats like Richard J. Daley in a way McCarthy could never be.
Would Johnson consider stepping back in? If not, I agree Kennedy is the clear choice, and the situation outside the convention is probably significantly less out of hand than IOTL, yes?
 
If both Humphrey *and* RFK are dead, there will be a huge draft-Teddy-Kennedy movement. Indeed, even in OTL, there was a serious "draft Teddy" move at the Democratic convention--even a Humphrey supporter like Daley encouraged it (though some people thought that Daley's real purpose was to get Teddy on the ticket as *vice* presidential candidate). And Eugene McCarthy said that after putting his own name in nomination on the first ballot (as a token gesture to his supporters), he would then step aside on subsequent ballots for Teddy--adding that this is something he would never have done for Robert. In the general election, EMK would have a relatively united Democratic party behind him--for both the LBJ/Humphrey and McCarthy wings of the party, he would at least be acceptable. He would also have the advantage that the sort of white conservative voters who would be unlikely to vote for him (though he did not have quite as much a reputation as a left-liberal as in later years) would be split between Nixon and Wallace. Besides, in 1968 the magic of the Kennedy name had not yet faded. Yes, he was young, but he would point out that Nixon had attacked JFK as too young and inexperienced in 1960. (And of course it was before Chappaquiddick.)

This is assuming he accepts, of course.
 
Last edited:
Top