LBJ Dies in Late '67
- Thread starter DSS
- Start date
McCarthy withdraws, Humphrey has a better shot in the general but could still lose to Nixon. Given that LBJ's polling numbers at the time resembled his fellow Texan's in early '08, the sympathy wave will be much more limited than it was for JFK.
All things considered, the election of 1968 was much closer than one might expect given the circumstances. Here, I can see things going either way. On the one hand, Humphrey might be saddled with Johnson level unpopularity by November 1968. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether America would be willing to throw Humphrey out of office so quickly, so he might win. Either way, this means Humphrey will not run in 1972, which in turn means that his side of the party will have to choose someone else. Assuming that Muskie implodes as he historically did, I'm not sure who would play the Hubert Humphrey role. I'd say Henry Jackson, except he was a rather poor campaigner from what I recall.
Um, Humphrey could run in '72. I'd say Humphrey wins in '68, '72 depends. Would Nixon still run in '68?
And Jackson's campaigning won't be an issue. No primary campaigning reform is a huge butterfly from this. RFK also probably lives.
Nixon will run in '68 because that's his last chance to become POTUS. In 1972 the Democrats will fall (if they haven't already in '68) to incumbency fatigue and a crap economy. Reagan trounces Humphrey easily.
For the Dems, RFK takes control after 1972 and New Democratizes them with all the tools at his disposal. He probably succeeds Reagan in 1980.
For the Dems, RFK takes control after 1972 and New Democratizes them with all the tools at his disposal. He probably succeeds Reagan in 1980.
One thing worth noting; dying before the Tet Offensive will probably save him from having his legacy tarred by the failure of the Vietnam War.
Then why did Nixon run in '72 in your TL? I don't see why Nixon couldn't wait four more years than OTL.
IOTL Nixon told his family that if he didn't run in '68, his retirement would be permanent. Plus Nixon is beginning to look politically dated after having been out of office for a decade, not to mention the rising conservative tide.
Not to mention that since he'd be less than two months into his Presidency when the Tet Offensive hit, he'd probably be able to avoid a lot of the backlash that hit Johnson over it. After all, he'd still be fairly new in office, and would have a valid claim to not having had enough time to seriously alter US policy in Vietnam.
The problem with that is HHH's slavish devotion to the Johnson 'Nam line, particularly as the administration's chief advocate on the Sunday shows where his job was to counter RFK. (who was disgusted with HHH's spinelessness)
Who might Humphrey select (under the recently ratified 25th amendment) as VPOTUS - John Connally, Edmund Muskie, Cyrus Vance?
Definitely not Connally or Vance. Either Muskie, Sanford or Sanders.
Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll
Banned
Humphrey wins in '68. Here's why.
Tip O'Neill writes in his book, Man of the House, that Humphrey's stance on the war was much closer to his than LBJ's. As we all know, Tip was one of the first insiders in DC to come out against the war. The reason why Humphrey didn't oppose the war in his platform was because LBJ would have made him pay some way or another. With LBJ gone, he could oppose the war to the best of his abilities. He wins in '68, and probably in '72. He was a true liberal who could unite the unions, civil rights leaders, and anti-war protesters. This America was much more liberal than right now.
Tip O'Neill writes in his book, Man of the House, that Humphrey's stance on the war was much closer to his than LBJ's. As we all know, Tip was one of the first insiders in DC to come out against the war. The reason why Humphrey didn't oppose the war in his platform was because LBJ would have made him pay some way or another. With LBJ gone, he could oppose the war to the best of his abilities. He wins in '68, and probably in '72. He was a true liberal who could unite the unions, civil rights leaders, and anti-war protesters. This America was much more liberal than right now.
The war wasn't the only issue. Inflation had been on the upswing since the summer of '67 and then you have the impending Democratic civil war between the machinists and reformers plus nascent ideological battles (RFK and the New Southerners v. New Dealers v. New Leftists). All of which is going to explode very soon and which Humphrey is powerless to prevent. If Humphrey backtracked on the war it would be the mother of all U-turns and his political credibility will be nonexistent across the political spectrum. Scraping home in '68 still leads to the scenario I mentioned earlier.