Nixon wins in 1962-what happens to Reagan?

The basic scenario is this:

Richard Nixon's 1962 effort to become Governor of California proves successful. Despite this national political history is more or less the same as historical reality.

Barry Goldwater is still the nominee and still loses a lopsided defeat. Ronald Reagan still gives a convention speech that makes him Goldwater's heir as the darling of the Conservative Movement.

However-in 1966 the Governor of California will be a Republican. Nixon will presumably seek reelection that year. He may hate being Governor-but I'm not sure Nixon would willingly step aside for Reagan. So what do Reagan and his backers do?

Do they try to run Reagan against Nixon in the Republican primaries? This is a strategy with some risk. There's no guarantee Reagan can win. Indeed such a victory would seem downright improbable early on.

Do they wait two years and run Reagan against Kuchel? If so how would Reagan maintain conservative enthusiasm without running a campaign in 1966?

Or would they perhaps run him for a House seat intending for him to run against Kuchel in 1968?

Or might they wait longer than that-until 1970 when the Governor's race becomes open again. Although this would mean Nixon's not running for a third term and that Reagan can defeat Nixon's designated successor. Or in the case of Nixon still winning the Presidency-Reagan would have to defeat an incumbent Governor.

With Nixon as Governor would the conservatives be more able to push some other candidate for the Presidency in 1968?

That is would Nixon's 1966 reelection effort prevent him from campaigning for other Republicans-and thereby prevent him from developing the institutional strength that led to his nomination?

In turn might that lead to Reagan's displacement as the darling of the conservatives?

Nixon wins in 1962-what happens to Reagan?
 
Nixon will deal with the Watts riots and other stuff that made Pat Brown lose in 1966.

If Nixon wins in 1962, expect him losing in 1966 to a Democrat

For Reagan: He remains an actor

Nixon does not run in 1968, Rockefeller, Romney or Rhodes becomes nominee
 
According to Pat Buchanan ( :p ) in his book 'The Greatest Comeback' - Nixon intended to only serve one term and to run in 1968 for the Presidency.
 
I kind of like the scenario, Ronnie runs for the U.S. House in '66 and the Senate in '68.

Or . . . please remember Ronnie's a tremendous letter writer, might develop enough of a following in his House district, primarily among conservative activists, that he decides to stay there.
 
According to Pat Buchanan ( :p ) in his book 'The Greatest Comeback' - Nixon intended to only serve one term and to run in 1968 for the Presidency.

For once I think he's right. Nixon just wanted that job as a springboard to the Presidency. Still, I bet he'd be a terrible governor, which should prove interesting for '68...
 
Reagan's backers already anticipated that Kuchel would be Reagan's opponent-to the point where they spread a slur about him.

As far as Nixon's concerned-when 1966 comes I'm not sure he can avoid running for reelection. Even if that was part of the plan originally-after four years in office wouldn't that look a little like abandoning his post?
Nixon was good at playing the backlash to his

1968 in this scenario is weird. Nixon may well not be able to campaign outside of California in 1966. Nixon's effort in 1966 was a key factor in his comeback in 1968.

Disorder in his state might ruin his viability in any event. Meaning he's not the natural nominee whatever happens in 1966.

But Ronald Reagan also can't be nominated.

I have no idea who emerges as the nominee if both Nixon and Reagan are effectively out of the picture.

Rockefeller is too hated by the conservatives to be nominated. George Romney disqualified himself-which leaves who? Rhodes?

I do wonder what kind of role Ronald Reagan would serve in the Senate. He might actually be more of a hardline conservative as Senator than as Governor. I also wonder what the Reagan and Goldwater dynamic looks like if they are both in the Senate. Does Goldwater mentor Reagan or does someone like Thurmond do that?
 
I do wonder what kind of role Ronald Reagan would serve in the Senate. He might actually be more of a hardline conservative as Senator than as Governor. I also wonder what the Reagan and Goldwater dynamic looks like if they are both in the Senate. Does Goldwater mentor Reagan or does someone like Thurmond do that?
Now, as Senator, Reagan would be representing the entire state of California. He's not going to make as extreme statements as, say, representing Orange County.
 
Top