nixon wins in 1960 watergate in 1966?

I wonder from time to time ,had nixon won in 1960, how sucessfully would

his presidency had been. do you think it would be possible for a water

gate scandle to end a nixon preidency, had he won in 1960. winning in

1960 means he does not ru nfor governor in 62 and loses. would this cause him to be less paraniod. was water gate something a 1968 nixon would do?
 
No. Hoover is still alive.

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

But I think for leftists actually, Nixon win is optimal. 68 is victory year for Dems............................................................... and from then on tilll 76, and then from 80s till............like foreerver
 
I think OTL the anti war movement triggered Nixon's paranoia enough to cause watergate. As a World War II veteran Nixon was shocked that so many people would defy the Commander in Chief. I assume he would escalate starting in 1961. So I see an antiwar movement and a very paranoid President Nixon.
 
If Nixon is POTUS during the sixties then he isn't warped by the emotional burden of his OT failures of 1960 and 1962.

Also, the White House Plumbers were created to deal with people Nixon and Kissinger considered to be treacherous anti-war turncoats. We're talking about a hawkish admin reacting to an anti-war backlash within the permnanent DC elite that had been brewing for years. The trigger for the White House crackdown is the Pentagon Papers, which in turn was triggered by Daniel Ellsberg's reaction to Tet IIRC.

White House Plumbers=/=probably not going to exist if ATL President Nixon is in his second or third year of escalating the Vietnam War circa '66.

No. Hoover is still alive.

If you want to look at the dirty secrets side of things, I think the fact that either Allen Dulles or Dick Bissell is still in charge at Langley is more important.

I think in foreign policy he would have been more immediately aggressive, and thus more successful than Kennedy...

then Nixon might be encouraged to take more stands over Cuba

Off topic for this thread, but: surely an "immediately agressive" Nixon would invade Cuba as soon as he learns the anti-Castro forces are losing at Bay of Pigs?
 
I think OTL the anti war movement triggered Nixon's paranoia enough to cause watergate. As a World War II veteran Nixon was shocked that so many people would defy the Commander in Chief. I assume he would escalate starting in 1961. So I see an antiwar movement and a very paranoid President Nixon.

Okay, didn't see this.

But I disagree about this for one reason--a Nixon who is elected in '60 and reelected in '66 is going to be in an incredible bubble, he's barely going to be aware of these people. I don't think he has even the qualified emotional awareness that LBJ possessed during the same era in OTL.
 
I would agree that Nixon would be a lot more disposed to unilateral American military involvement, albeit in support of the Exiles (in a substantive way or a notional one) rather than just simply invading Cuba.

Unless your PoD is set before the planning for the invasion got under way, then IMO a scenario where Nixon just has a better election day, 1960, doesn't change the nominal anti-Castro-Cuban invasion one iota.

But seriously, Dick Nixon going against the advice of the military brass on the day in question, like JFK did in OTL? I'm not seeing it.

American forces leading a renewed invasion at Pigs under his direction is perfectly in keeping with the Nixon who had already been in favour of bombing Dien Bien Phu in '54.
 
I agree with those who say that Watergate as we know it won't be taking place in 1964 in a Nixon wins in 60 TL and we definitely won't see a presidencial resignation in 1966.

I'm going off-topic slightly, but I started a TL a while back where Eisenhower's 1955 heart attack proves fatal, leaving Nixon as president. In it, he does risk a few watergate-esc dirty tricks in the 1956 and 1960 elections, but they're not as extreme as OTL and by the time they come out (several years after his presidency ends), only a few selective people are truely excited about it. Ironicly, most of these activities are against members of his own party, rather than the dems.

I had his paranoyer showing up for 2 reasons. Firstly, he believes the public don't "love" him as much as his late predecessor (which is true, Ike's even more popular than OTL as a result of his death) and they view Nixon as another "his accidency" due to his youth (which on the whole, is not).

Secondly, he is (unsuccessfully) challenged for the 1956 nomination, partly for that reason. The challenge isn't anywhere near being serious enough to deny Nixon nomination, but coupled with Nixon's fears over his image with the public, he feels he is in more danger than he actually is. He isn't challenged for the 1960 nomination, but he feels that opposition from the GOP needs to be "stomped out" as early as possible.

In a scenario where he is elected in his own right in 1960 however, I think he'd resort to even less watergate style tricks than I've had him do in my TL.
 
I think OTL the anti war movement triggered Nixon's paranoia enough to cause watergate. As a World War II veteran Nixon was shocked that so many people would defy the Commander in Chief. I assume he would escalate starting in 1961. So I see an antiwar movement and a very paranoid President Nixon.

I disagree. The Watergate break-in occurred in 1972 because of the re-election. If Nixon's re-election is 1964, there isn't an anti-war movement at the time. There is only a noticeable antiwar movement by 1967 or 1968 at best.

What exactly is Nixon escalating in your scenario that there is an antiwar movement by 1964? Even IOTL, Ngo Dinh Diem is not killed until November 1963, and there is no reason for escalation before that time. In a timeline where Nixon wins in 1960, I find it very hard to believe he would ever agree to the coup against Diem. In 1961 or even 1962 there is no reason whatsoever to escalate activity in Vietnam.

Even if he does decide to escalate, which will probably not be until 1964 or 1965 - too late to generate an anti-war movement, there is no guarantee he will make the same mistakes as LBJ/McNamara. You have an entirely different Vietnam War, and we can't say for sure it will ever get to the point where we have a Tet moment or mass antiwar movement.

Furthermore, the Kremlin won't risk pushing Nixon like they did with Kennedy. There is almost certainly no Cuban Missile Crisis, and they even handle Berlin differently. Castro might even be eliminated completely. Nixon won't feel the need to have someplace he must show strength to make up for past weaknesses. It was out of a sense he had been pushed around why Kennedy originally increased US involvement in Vietnam.
 
Nah, he'd be too obsessed with getting a much closer victory than a 1960 election would be and with proving he could win a fair election to risk a Watergate. In 1960 he was somewhat paranoid but not to the extent of the 1970s Nixon who'd spent the 60s stewing about it all. I'm not sure *what* Nixon would have done with the Ngo Dinh Diem problem.
 
I had always thought that the reason Nixon resorted to the "dirty tricks" was because he was screwed out of the 1960 election (Daley in Chicago, LBJ in Texas)
 
Nixon does okay...

Nixon won narrowly (like JFK in OTL), carrying Illinois, Missouri and two or three other close swing states--but not LBJ's Texas. Democratic Party pros and the conventional wisdom blame the loss on JFK's youth and religion. Nonetheless, in 1961, President Nixon faces a Democratic Congress with a potential 1964 opponent in Senate Majority Leader LBJ.

Like Ike, Nixon has a modest legislative agenda and needs conservative Southern Democrat votes in Congress. For political reasons as part of his legislative chess match with LBJ, Nixon offers Civil Rights legislation which he then does not push very hard. Overall, Nixon--who is more interested in foreign policy anyway--gets little accomplished in terms of a legislative agenda. (JFK didn't either in OTL).

In the area of foreign policy, Nixon proves to be a more effective president. After the Bay of Pigs in OTL, Khrushchev judged JFK to be a lightweight and bought into the caricature of Kennedy as the playboy son of a multimillionaire capitalist speculator, who bought the presidency for him. As a consequence, Soviet foreign policy became much more aggressive in OTL.

After CIA-trained Cuban exile forces prove unable to beat Castro even with U.S. air cover, Nixon goes into Cuba with U.S. forces and knocks Castro out of power. The Soviets loudly protest, but (like the U.S. during the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956) do nothing. Nixon's approval rating soars. There is, of course, no Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Soviets and East Germans still erect the Berlin Wall--as they had no other acceptable options--but do so is a much less confrontational manner than OTL by secretly informing Nixon about their plans in advance. Nixon vehemently denounces the new Berlin Wall, but does nothing to prevent it or knock it down. Nixon's approval rating nonetheless soars after he visits West Berlin.

As Ike had contemplated doing in 1960, Nixon sends U.S. ground forces into Laos to divide the country in half and cut off communist supply lines and infiltration routes south into Cambodia and South Vietnam. With Lodge as VP relegated by Nixon to attending state funerals and making goodwill tours, and not running his own foreign policy as U.S. Ambassador in Siagon, President Diem holds on and defeats the Buddhist challenge in 1963 to his regime in South Vietnam. The result is a much better U.S. strategic and political situation in Southeast Asia than that faced by LBJ in OTL during the mid-1960s. Nixon's intervention in Laos, following so closely on the heels of the invasion of Cuba, is controversial, but proves far less bloody and costly to the U.S. than LBJ's later intervention in South Vietnam in OTL.

Surrounded by Eisenhower Administration veterans, and not emotionally scarred by the electoral defeats in 1960 and 1962 in OTL, President Nixon has no scandals in 1961-65 that even remotely compare to Watergate. He may be less charismatic than JFK, and the Nixon White House's image less glamorous, but Nixon does okay as president.

In 1964, the Nixon-Lodge ticket is easily renominated by the Republican Party. Nixon faces either LBJ--whose standing among Democrats was only improved by running for VP in 1960--or a northern liberal such as Hubert Humphrey trumpeting the issue of Civil Rights. Given a decent economy and no major scandals, Nixon is favored to win re-election
 
Interesting TL. Vietnam remains the sticking point. While the Catholic refugees from the north were very anti-Ho, he was seen by most as a genuine national liberator, the peasants in the south were desperate for land reform and controls on the exactions of the elite, and the Diem regime was both inept and corrupt. To grossly oversimplify, since the Diem government and its successors never addressed the underlying causes of discontent in the rural population, and were grotesquely corrupt to boot, Ho & the NLF were seen as the "good guys". If somehow rural reform and relatively honest government & aid going where it belongs rather than in to elite pockets occurs, then maybe a Vietnam with a permanent division like Korea is possible. Yes the USA could tamp down the VC & "pacify" things, but unless the above reforms/changes are made as soon as the USA leaves, the insurgency will re-emerge.
 
Nixon's term would be dominated by Cuba. Either it would be a worse anologue than otl's Vietnam or he end up in WW3 over the missiles
 
Nixon wins in 60.

But almost certainly still a very, very, very close race.

And both sides will make muted, and probably somewhat truthful, accusations against each other about voting shenanigans. Republicans pointing at the Democrats in Illinois (Chicago) and Texas. The Democrats pointing to Republicans in southern Illinois.

Is it possible Nixon's memories of these actions could spur him to encourage Watergate type activities against the Democratic nominee in 64?

I'd say its definitely possible. Just not sure how probable. Perhaps who he runs against in 64 might influence the probability. If JFK or LBJ are on the ticket again, I'd think the odds would increase.

Who would the favorite Dem candidates be to run in 64?
 
I wouldn't worry about Watergate until after I see how well Nixon handles the situation in Cuba. If the Northern Hemisphere gets blown away, a break-in is going to be the least of our worries.
 
Would mankind even exist if Nixon had won 1960? The Cuban missile crisis would have almost certainly escalated to a nuclear holocaust under Nixon. Nixon would have invaded Cuba which would have touched off WWIII.
I've read somewhere that American intelligence sources actually knew and warned JFK about the missiles before they reached Cuba, so that he might have been able to do something about the situation back then, but that he delayed until after their arrival so that he'd be able to do some more impressive grandstanding and thus boost his chance of re-election... If that is true then maybe Nixon would have been smarter?
 
To be Honest I believe that with Nixon as president he would have been willing to commit US forces to Support the Cuban Exiles.Thus the Bay of Pigs would have had a different ending. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis and no Contra problem as the Soviets would have backed off.
There may not have been a problem in Southeast Asia as both the Soviets and the Chinese would have urges restraint.
 
I've read somewhere that American intelligence sources actually knew and warned JFK about the missiles before they reached Cuba, so that he might have been able to do something about the situation back then, but that he delayed until after their arrival so that he'd be able to do some more impressive grandstanding and thus boost his chance of re-election... If that is true then maybe Nixon would have been smarter?

As mentioned before, there would not have been a Cuban Missile Crisis. Bay of Pigs was an extreme weakness in Soviet eyes so they pushed Kennedy with the missiles. As for Cuba being like Vietnam; an island in a sea controlled by the US Navy, 100 miles off the US shore; it's laughable. Terrorism and a weak insurrection with no outside resources, no doubt; but with the Cuban government beholding to the US for support, pressure for reforms and a strong stable country would be extreme.
 
Top