A certain John Hinckley wants to impress a certain actress, I'm guessing.
Flies that butter. And that goes for many of the posts so far, unfortunately.
A certain John Hinckley wants to impress a certain actress, I'm guessing.
Sorry I've not been able to reply (schoolwork), but taking into account similar legislative success to LBJ and identical escalation in the Vietnam War (let's give it a reason, say Indonesia falls to Communism ITTL, but still falters). Could RFK still have been Democrat Candidate, and how to have Nixon not run, and have Reagan win the Presidency?
IRC, RFK had no ambitions to be President (or for any elected office) until his brother was killed, even if he did TTL, I doubt he'd run to succeed his brother in 1968. If he wants the Presidency, he'll give it a go in '72 or '76, otherwise Teddy will run sometime in the '70s or '80s. With a similar escalation of Vietnam to OTL and the all the unrest that's bound to come with it (although not to the extent of OTL), and with much less legislative success than LBJ OTL, I think the GOP wins in '68 and I see no reason why Nixon wouldn't run again and win, either against LBJ (LBJ vs. Nixon would be a HELL OF A RACE) or Humphrey.Sorry I've not been able to reply (schoolwork), but taking into account similar legislative success to LBJ and identical escalation in the Vietnam War (let's give it a reason, say Indonesia falls to Communism ITTL, but still falters). Could RFK still have been Democrat Candidate, and how to have Nixon not run, and have Reagan win the Presidency?
IRC, RFK had no ambitions to be President (or for any elected office) until his brother was killed, even if he did TTL, I doubt he'd run to succeed his brother in 1968. If he wants the Presidency, he'll give it a go in '72 or '76, otherwise Teddy will run sometime in the '70s or '80s. With a similar escalation of Vietnam to OTL and the all the unrest that's bound to come with it (although not to the extent of OTL), and with much less legislative success than LBJ OTL, I think the GOP wins in '68 and I see no reason why Nixon wouldn't run again and win, either against LBJ (LBJ vs. Nixon would be a HELL OF A RACE) or Humphrey.
True, but Nixon did want the Presidency very badly (his run for governor in 1962 proved his political ambitions never died in 1960) and with Goldwater still most likely getting the nomination in 1964, I doubt Rocky, Romney, or Scranton would be able to unify their wing with the Goldwater/Reagan wing the way Nixon did.Butterflies may make it so that Nixon decides against running in 1968. Nixon was pretty happy with private life, and running was far from an assured thing. I feel, with less legislative success, the social ills that the Great Society resolved (such as poverty) would have continued, which creates an opening for an Eisenhower/Dewey Republican (such as Romney, Scranton, or Rockefeller himself).
True, but Nixon did want the Presidency very badly (his run for governor in 1962 proved his political ambitions never died in 1960) and with Goldwater still most likely getting the nomination in 1964, I doubt Rocky, Romney, or Scranton would be able to unify their wing with the Goldwater/Reagan wing the way Nixon did.
If it's Reagan Vs. Humphrey in 1968, I'd say it'd be a narrow win for HHH. Reagan had been governor for less than 2 years and like Goldwater before him was too Conservative for 1960s America.Here's my opinion:
1961-1969: John Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson
*Historic Fork in the Road*
1969-????: Hubert Humphrey
or
1969-????: Ronald Reagan
And that is as far as we can see. Alternate history is like a horizon. We can see so far based off the POD, but the further from it you get, the more variables and unknowns pop up, and you can never know for sure how things would turn out, because so many things could have occurred, building on top of on another, until you could have wildly different outcomes. And assuming a multiverse, they are all valid. That's what is beyond the horizon and out of sight. You can guess or imagine, but you cannot see. We can historically discuss things in a valid form up until 1968/1969, but after that, it has to be general concepts, which does not lend itself to a list of presidents. That's rather specific.
If it's Reagan Vs. Humphrey in 1968, I'd say it'd be a narrow win for HHH. Reagan had been governor for less than 2 years and like Goldwater before him was too Conservative for 1960s America.
OK, my list:
John F. Kennedy (Democratic): 1961-1969
George Romney (Republican): 1969-1977
Howard Baker (Republican): 1977-1985
Walter Mondale (Democratic): 1985-1989
John Anderson (Republican): 1989-1993
Anne Richards (Democratic): 1993-2001
Joe Biden (Democratic): 2001-2005
Tommy Thompson (Republican): 2005-2013
Mike Beebe (Democratic): 2013-
I think the post-Kennedy era is difficult for the Democrats, since you see simmering civil war between the pro and anti-Civil Rights factions, but you're not going to see OTL Southern Realignment. Nixon is happy where he is, and the Rockefeller Republicans remain dominant in the party.
I give you brownie points for going more off the beaten track in term of candidates.