After he lost to Governor Pat Brown in 1962, Nixon gave a paranoid, spiteful, self-pitying speech to the press proclaiming they wouldn't have Nixon to "kick around anymore" and he retired from politics. That is, until JFK's assassination got the political wheels turning once again in Nixon's head and he rejoined the fray in the 1966 midterms before winning the Presidency in 1968. But what if Nixon had retired for good in 1962?
 

Chapman

Donor
Come 1968, assuming JFK is still assassinated and everything else went as IOTL, I think we might see a Reagan/Rockefeller (or some combo thereof) compromise ticket. Maybe Reagan/Romney is more likely, but point being I think without the beast that is Nixon in the running, Reagan wins that year. He might or might not win the GE, it depends on whether or not Wallace stull runs (which I think is likely). My money would ultimately be on Humphrey, but Reagan could pull it out potentially.
 
Come 1968, assuming JFK is still assassinated and everything else went as IOTL, I think we might see a Reagan/Rockefeller (or some combo thereof) compromise ticket. Maybe Reagan/Romney is more likely, but point being I think without the beast that is Nixon in the running, Reagan wins that year. He might or might not win the GE, it depends on whether or not Wallace stull runs (which I think is likely). My money would ultimately be on Humphrey, but Reagan could pull it out potentially.

A Reagan Presidency in 1968 could be pretty scary. Reagan advocated either dramatic escalation of the war, or outright withdrawal. Neither option would be realistic and could potentially be disastrous for the US. Not that he would win against Humphrey, if the moderate Nixon only just barely beat him then Reagan would lose.
 
Reagan advocated either dramatic escalation of the war

Now, this is interesting option. Bombing of the Vietnamese dikes, full declaration of war, insertion of even more US troops into Vietnam, use of nuclear tactical weapons. Have someone ever wrote a TL about that?
 
Now, this is interesting option. Bombing of the Vietnamese dikes, full declaration of war, insertion of even more US troops into Vietnam, use of nuclear tactical weapons. Have someone ever wrote a TL about that?

It sounds similar to what happened when George Wallace got elected President in Stephen King's "11/22/63." IMO, it's more likely that Rockefeller is nominated with Reagan as his running mate. They beat Humphrey, and Rocky executes his plan to obtain a peace settlement by the end of 1969.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Reagan would be at the top of the GOP ticket in '68. With Nixon not in the equation, that opens up opportunities for Rockefeller not there IOTL. Don't forget, Rockefeller had close ties to Henry Kissinger, so he could legitimately claim to having strategies in the can to bring about a negotiated end to Viet Nam: a variation of a peace with honor, if you like. Reagan would balance the ticket as the VP, and would probably be a VP along the Nixon model if not more so: say, involved to the point of handling more mundane / day-to-day stuff, leaving Rocky to deal with the big stuff, like foreign affairs. (Which reminds me: we're saying Nixon is out of politics at this point but I'm suggesting the narrow view that this means elective politics such that Nixon, well versed as he was in foreign affairs, might well work side by side with Henry Kissinger to get an accord in Viet Nam done--say, by about late 1970 / early 1971.)
 
(Which reminds me: we're saying Nixon is out of politics at this point but I'm suggesting the narrow view that this means elective politics such that Nixon, well versed as he was in foreign affairs, might well work side by side with Henry Kissinger to get an accord in Viet Nam done--say, by about late 1970 / early 1971.)

Perhaps Nixon is Secretary of State while Kissinger is National Security Advisor.
 
With Rockefeller/Reagan in power from 1969 to 1977, the Democrats probably win in '76 due to the bad economy. Reagan will be the GOP favorite. although he'd have to pick a moderate/liberal Republican in order to unite the party in what would amount to a largely futile campaign. The Democrats won't nominate Carter, instead they might give the nod to the runner up Mo Udall.

35. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

37. Nelson Rockefeller (1969-1977)
38. Mo Udall (1977-?)

Whether or not Udall is reelected depends upon how he handles the late seventies. IMO it would have been possible for the incumbent to be reelected in 1980 had they simply made good decisions, which wasn't exactly Carter's forte.
 
Without Nixon.gif


Speaking in very poor words, the Republicans fail to put together that vast majority of moderates and conservatives generally disgruntled by the democratic administration (which Nixon succeeded in OTL), although more out of hostility towards Johnson than towards the Democrats, with the moderates who had voted for Rockefeller and the conservatives who had at least partly chosen Wallace, and this division delivered the White House to Humphrey. Speaking of statistics, Rockfeller is able to go very well among the rich and better than usual among blacks and Italians, but loses a lot of ground in the rest of the population, especially among low-income workers, rural inhabitants and members of the trade unions, who had mostly chosen Humphrey but still had high percentages of Wallace voters (in OTL Nixon also won in the middle class and among the inhabitants of the rural areas, as well as conquering one of the union members out of three. the beginning of the end of the political and therefore economic influence of the unions, since the workers affiliated to them began to disobey the endorsement of their own organization-the unions supported almost all of Humphrey-, causing slow erosion and disintegration). The Republicans are defeated and crippled heavily in the South, where the Southern Strategy seems dead even before it was born and where instead Wallace seemed to do the good and the bad weather, but still put better than four years earlier and with their positions in New England strengthened. The Democrats confirm the strength of synergy with the trade unions and the minorities, the peace and civil rights party returned with no jolts, and they reconquer the youth, while geographically they lost their old southern stronghold to focus on the Great Lakes and their workers' metropolis with high black presence and on the West Coast with its rebel universities. So basically this ends up with the maintenance of the Republican Party as a liberal-conservative party of the center-north and the middle-high social band, with the Democratic Party to make the liberal party of the center-north and the middle-low social band and the American Independent Party to do the conservative-regionalist party of the South and the low-rural belt.
 
View attachment 406882

Speaking in very poor words, the Republicans fail to put together that vast majority of moderates and conservatives generally disgruntled by the democratic administration (which Nixon succeeded in OTL), although more out of hostility towards Johnson than towards the Democrats, with the moderates who had voted for Rockefeller and the conservatives who had at least partly chosen Wallace, and this division delivered the White House to Humphrey. Speaking of statistics, Rockfeller is able to go very well among the rich and better than usual among blacks and Italians, but loses a lot of ground in the rest of the population, especially among low-income workers, rural inhabitants and members of the trade unions, who had mostly chosen Humphrey but still had high percentages of Wallace voters (in OTL Nixon also won in the middle class and among the inhabitants of the rural areas, as well as conquering one of the union members out of three. the beginning of the end of the political and therefore economic influence of the unions, since the workers affiliated to them began to disobey the endorsement of their own organization-the unions supported almost all of Humphrey-, causing slow erosion and disintegration). The Republicans are defeated and crippled heavily in the South, where the Southern Strategy seems dead even before it was born and where instead Wallace seemed to do the good and the bad weather, but still put better than four years earlier and with their positions in New England strengthened. The Democrats confirm the strength of synergy with the trade unions and the minorities, the peace and civil rights party returned with no jolts, and they reconquer the youth, while geographically they lost their old southern stronghold to focus on the Great Lakes and their workers' metropolis with high black presence and on the West Coast with its rebel universities. So basically this ends up with the maintenance of the Republican Party as a liberal-conservative party of the center-north and the middle-high social band, with the Democratic Party to make the liberal party of the center-north and the middle-low social band and the American Independent Party to do the conservative-regionalist party of the South and the low-rural belt.

Rockefeller would be more likely to pick Reagan as a running mate since they actually tried to join forces and stop Nixon by forging a ticket at a brokered convention. Romney was discredited by his disastrous campaign, whereas Reagan as a charismatic Western conservative with southern appeal.

Also Wallace getting 20% of the vote with Rockefeller in the race is pretty unrealistic since he took votes from Humphrey, not Nixon. And Rockefeller getting 35% is unbelievable. Goldwater got more than that in 1964, even McGivern did better in '72. Rockefeller crushed LBJ 54% to 38% in a 1968 Gallup poll. While he would do worse against Humphrey, Rockefeller would at least do as well as Nixon in the popular vote.
 
Rockefeller would be more likely to pick Reagan as a running mate since they actually tried to join forces and stop Nixon by forging a ticket at a brokered convention. Romney was discredited by his disastrous campaign, whereas Reagan as a charismatic Western conservative with southern appeal.

Also Wallace getting 20% of the vote with Rockefeller in the race is pretty unrealistic since he took votes from Humphrey, not Nixon. And Rockefeller getting 35% is unbelievable. Goldwater got more than that in 1964, even McGivern did better in '72. Rockefeller crushed LBJ 54% to 38% in a 1968 Gallup poll. While he would do worse against Humphrey, Rockefeller would at least do as well as Nixon in the popular vote.

I partially agree with what you said,yes they did work together in OTL to defeat Nixon but without Nixon in the field i doubt they would collaborate since Reagan had an ambitious personality plus their base was pretty polarized,so i doubt Rockfeller would have chosen Reagan as his running mate given his extremism and connection with Goldwater,and not to consider that he was still unripe with only one year of experience as Governor of California,even though he had strong communication skills.

In a Rockfeller vs Reagan convention the establishment and the centrists of the GOP would have flocked to Rockefeller especially considering that the Chairman of the RNC at that time was Ray Bliss from Ohio,a skilled mediator,he could have convinced Romney to endorse Rockfeller thus giving the GOP a reassuring profile, conservative but inclusive and in which the majority of Americans could have recognized (in OTL this profile was Nixon, but without him Rockfeller is the one that best responds to this request, much more than Reagan)
 
Hi I'm new, but I find this topic very interesting. However I wanted to point out that the messages posted by Aequanimitas are "a little" copied (included Wiki scheme) from the Italian uchronist Federico Sangalli's work on the same POD in this Italian alternative history site, UtopiaUcronia.
Benvenuti in UtopiaUcronia! - fmboschetto
http://www.fmboschetto.it/utopiaucronia/Marigolds.htm#senza_Nixon
I don't think this is a problem but I believe that would be polite ask for permission or indicate the source.
Many thanks!
 
Top