PC: US Presidents List w/o JFK dead

A non serious list that may or may not be plausible:

35. John F. Kennedy (D-MA): 1961-1969

36. Richard M. Nixon (R-CA): 1969-1977
37. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA): 1977-1981
38. Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-TN): 1981-1989
39. Robert J. Dole (R-KS): 1989-1993

40. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE): 1993-2001
41: B. Evan Bayh III (D-IN): 2001-2005

42. Fred D. Thompson (R-TN): 2005-2013
43. Martin J. O'Malley (D-MD): 2013-2021
 
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?
 
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?

5x8xefLwQaWQND3oZPvw_Simpsons%20Stare.gif
 
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.
 
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.

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).
 
How would the economy perform then? What is their approach on poverty, and the stagflation of the 1970s?

How about a moderate Republican's approach to a high-speed railway system? TERFA? The collapse of the Gold Standard? Volcker?
 
If there is an avoidance of overt US military conflict in Vietnam, that seriously lessens the possibility of stagflation. I would argue it would not occur. Not to say there won't be a recession (or more) throughout the 1970s, but that is economically normal. There were recessions in the 60s and 50s. Stagflation was certainly not normal. It's a freak of economics that no one knew how to answer, and which undermined Keynesian arguments, leading to the rise of classical and supply side arguments in prominence, neoliberal policies under the new Conservative wave, and the knock on effects we still feel today in our economic system.
 
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.
 
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.

Nixon's political ambitions died with 1962, and a race that was a bad idea to begin with. It revived with the assassination. And I have been won over by the argument that Reagan would have been the likely candidate in 1968. Incidentally, Eisenhower gave his backing, and moderate Republicans felt he was an acceptable Conservative.

EDIT:
I wrote "incidentally". I'm not sure why. I was on autopilot, and I meant another word but I can't remember what.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

It depends on the shape of 1963-1969, and people's reaction to things. In the OTL, the period was one of a growing disintegration of an assumed American consensus. It was a shift that, only two years after 1964, when intellectuals said the Conservative movement was dead, elected Conservatives and Republicans to Congress and in their state governments who stagnated the Great Society. For all the growing people who thought there were ideas whose time had come, there were others who rebuked it as a personal threat, and felt alienated or under assault by the changes. Remove Vietnam (a point I do not care to argue), remove the pain of the Kennedy assassination, the disillusionment with Johnson, and you remove fuel on a fire. But nonetheless, there is a fire. You will see hippies and people's movements, and you will see "backlash" -- a term, it is important to note, that was invented in that period. It is debatable whether it would be such as to overwhelmingly elect those opposition forces to Congress, and if it would be as great in this scenario. I would argue that it would not. But it is going to be there in some form, and if it is, it does open the door for Ronald Reagan, who managed to navigate himself into being acceptable to the American consensus. It did not matter that he was only in office for two years. Nor did it matter that he parroted Goldwater in 1964. He made himself into a political figure that was acceptable. I would argue that the 1970s is not going to be a period of Nixon Conservatism, but rather a hard edged moderatism. And Reagan can and did play to that, and he can fit in that world.

On a related topic, I have argued against the assumption that Lyndon Johnson would have been the nominee. I have mentioned the reasons already. However, I will state a course that Johnson could have taken. I feel it is unlikely, but political history has many unlikely things. Based on my statements of backlash, and based on the fact that Johnson was willing to do and look like many things to get elected, his could position himself as a soft, hinted opposition to the New Frontier and the assorted liberal legislation of the period that I argue Congress is likely to push through after the 1964 election. He could appeal to blue collar workers, southerners and suburbanites who feel threatened and alienated by the movements and youth culture of the time by positioning himself as a moderate to conservative Democrat. And in that way, he could seek the nomination. That is not outside of his wheel house, as he already played the big southerner in Congress, made the segregationists feel like he was a friend, and liberals resented him for watering down the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In this scenario, even if he helped Kennedy, he is unlikely to have ever shaken that image. And he can therefore use that image as a perfect appeal. Kennedy, already against the idea of Johnson ever being president, who loathe him for it.

EDIT:
It would be ironic if Johnson were the one who stoked the flames of division in America and the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Top