LBJ/Humphrey 1960: What Happens Then Against Goldwater in 1964?

LBJ/Humphrey 1960: What happens then in 1964 against Goldwater?

  • LBJ wins bigger than IOTL

  • LBJ wins smaller than IOTL

  • LBJ wins the same as IOTL


Results are only viewable after voting.
If LBJ had gotten the nomination in 1960 and won against Nixon, how would he fare against Goldwater in the 1964 election?

AFAIK, Kennedy's assassination boosted LBJ's numbers in 1964 with his "Protect JFK's Legacy" fervor, and their successful portrayal of Goldwater as a right-wing extremist.

Now without JFK, what would happen? Would he win with the same margins IOTL, or woule he win less states?

This question takes into account the 1964-65 tax cuts (Keynesian, not supply-side AFAIK), and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Hubert Humphrey as LBJ's running mate in 1960.

I also think Cuba's fate would be changed with a LBJ '60 POD.
 
The matters at hand: the sitting president is a Democrat who is not Richard Nixon. Therefore, 1964 is not going to be a period of party fatigue, and if the 1960s are successfully managed until 1964, the administration will be going into that election with decent or strong support. Secondly, Barry Goldwater is the person he is. The Conservatives won the nomination on zealotry and bloodlust, but they do not have widespread support outside of their own limited -though outspoken- numbers. This is not an era of mass media spreading a Conservative message, nor do Goldwater's supporters even have the same beliefs as Americans who would later become Nixon Conservatives or Johnson "generation gap" elder Liberals. Goldwater Republicans talk to themselves and among themselves, but not well outside of that bubble.

Assuming a similar 1961-1964, without an assassination, Johnson still has the chance to win 1964 by the same margin he did in actual history, and the same margine Kennedy could have if he had lived. It is a red herring to assume the assassination of Kennedy played the decisive role. It may have for Johnson, as he was given legitimacy he needed by that fact of a need for stability, a need for the continuation of the Kennedy administration, and no desire to have another president so quickly. However, the overarching issue is that the president has good popularity and support, and Goldwater has the exact opposite.

Matters to be taken into account are if Liberals may feel dissatisfied with Johnson, who is viewed as a Southern Democrat who undermined the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This depends on if Johnson can win their support between 1961 and 1964. However, it does not matter, because they are not going to vote for Barry Goldwater. However, their voting numbers may be down in 1964. Although they may vote in high numbers in order to oppose Goldwater. Johnson also has the potential for good voting numbers in the South. However, that can be eroded by movement on Civil Rights if he is actually in office to do something about it. But that also eroded in the actual 1964 based on Civil Rights. Therefore, assuming a similar 1961 to 1964, the election will have the same potential to turn out as it did. I think the elephant in the room is how 1961 to 1964 would be different.
 
BTW, I rather doubt that LBJ would choose Humphrey as his running mate in 1960, at least if JFK had been a candidate. Catholics would be angry that JFK had been denied the nomination and would attribute it (not entirely wrongly) to his religion. To mollify them, LBJ might see a need to choose a Catholic running mate. Ideally that would be JFK, but if he turned it down, the most likely Minnesotan running mate for LBJ is not Humphrey but Eugene McCarthy. (Indeed, McCarthy's speech at the convention for Stevenson was viewed by cynics as a stop-JFK maneuver designed so that that LBJ would be nominated and pick McCarthy as his running mate.) Incidentally, if the Democrats don't have a Catholic on the ticket there is a chance the Republicans will do so--Nixon considered Secretary of Labor James Mitchell in such an event. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/DHQqERPf0CA/vHps-GHC0dMJ

Now if JFK simply isn't around (say he died in back surgery several years earlier), LBJ-Humphrey looks more plausible.
 
Top