President Hubert Humphrey

tqm111 said:
I'm saying that HHH wouldn't have persued going to China the way Nixon did. And if HHH were to go it wouldn't at all be for the reasons Nixon did, which were all about triangulation.

I think it would be tougher sell for HHH, but the idea wasn't unique to Nixon and Kissinger either; it depends on what filters through his advisors and how much effort they decide to put into a China policy, if any.

Cambodia invasion, very unlikely. Bombing: LBJ used that too, so it would depend if the level of frustration tipped HHH over the edge on that issue. Incidentally, Operations Linebacker and Linebacker II were not World War II style carpet bombing, they were targeted at specific installations, transport infrastructure and high value political targets. As with all such operations there were hits on civillian targets and mistakes, however it was never area bombing like World War II -- which North Vietnamese and anti-war propaganda portrayed it as.
 
POD 1: George Wallace chooses Albert "Happy" Chandler (former two-time Kentucky Governor, Senator and Commissioner of Major League Baseball), as running mate and tells those Electors who object to his choice of the former Baseball Commissioner who allowed Jackie Robinson into the major league to "go to Hell!" (IOTL as he felt he should have after the election). Wallace no longer has a his IOTL 'use-the-a-bomb' problem with running mate Curtis LeMay - which became a scare factor driving away some voters from his ticket. In a number of close states this works to Wallace's advantage and Nixon's disadvantage (and would reflect in national popular vote numbers as well).

POD 2: Hubert H. Humphrey accepts President Johnson's advice to add a moderate Southerner to his ticket - chooses former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford. This helps him in North Carolina, but nowhere else.


Scenario One: Electoral Draw

North Carolina: Wallace improves over Nixon, some more voters shift from Nixon to Humphrey to support home state running mate: Humphrey/Sanford 552,448 (34.8%) (+5.6%) Wallace/Chandler 542,923 (34.2%) (+ 3%) 492,123 Nixon/Agnew (31%) (-8.6%)

Kentucky: Chandler's presence in his home state draws more Nixon votes to the Wallace/Chandler ticket: Humphrey/Sanford 392,792 (37.2%) (-0.5%), Nixon/Agnew 391,736 (37.1%) (-6.7%), Wallace/Chandler 268,197 (25.4%) (+7.2%), Other 2,843

Missouri: Same effect as Kentucky, though less of a swing as Chandler is not native to the state: Humphrey/Sanford 772,657 (42.7%) (-1 %), Nixon/Agnew 761,800 (42.1%) (-3%), Wallace/Chandler 275,044 (15.2%) (+4%)

Tennessee: The choice of Chandler adds momentum to Wallace's ticket and he draws from the other two: Wallace/Chandler 486,961 (39%) (+5%), Nixon/Agnew 422,032 (33.8%) (-4%); Humphrey/Sanford 339,624 (27.2%) (-1%)

South Carolina: Highest pro-Wallace climb in a conservative Southern State with deep Democratic roots and historic antipathy to the Northern Republican Party (they do not view Spiro Agnew as a 'Southerner'): Wallace/Chandler 295,473 (44.3%) (+12%), Nixon/Agnew 220,761 (30.1%) (-8%), Humphrey/Sanford 170,747 (25.6%) (-4%), Other: 4


Electoral College Result

Nixon/Agnew 249
Humphrey/Sanford 225
Wallace/Chandler 55
Uncommitted* 9

* = anti-Chandler Wallace Electors

George Wallace has achieved his aim of being the king-maker.


Incumbent President (36): Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
President-elect: undetermined

Incumbent Vice President (38): Hubert H. Humphrey (D)
Vice President-elect: undetermined ((39) J. Terry Sanford (D) - likely; potentially acting President)

1968draw.gif
 
Scenario Two: Humphrey Wins

Same as above with some key Northern effects - Wallace/Chandler gets some more blue-collar Democrats without the LeMay scare factor that otherwise sends them to Nixon. Also, some voters are reacting to a subjective association of baseball with the Wallace/Chandler ticket:

Illinois: Humphrey/Sanford 2,039,814 (44.2%) (0); Nixon/Agnew 2,037,309 (44.1%) (-3%); Wallace/Chandler 531,271 (11.5%) (+3%); Other: 14,203

New Jersey: Humphrey/Sanford 1,264,206 (44%) (0); Nixon/Agnew 1,239,295 (43.1%) (-3%); Wallace/Chandler 347,923 (12.1%) (+3%); Other: 23,535

Ohio: Humphrey/Sanford 1,700,586 (43%) (0); Nixon/Agnew 1,674,952 (42.2%) (-3%); Wallace/Chandler 586,035 (14.8%) (+3%); Other: 603


Electoral College Result

Humphrey/Sanford 294
Nixon/Agnew 180
Wallace/Chandler 55
Uncommitted* 9

* = anti-Chandler Wallace Electors


Incumbent President (36): Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Incumbent Vice President (38): Hubert H. Humphrey (D)

President-elect (37): Hubert H. Humphrey (D)
Vice President-elect (39): J. Terry Sanford (D)

1968HHHwins.gif
 
Scenario Three: Humphrey Wins

Remove Humphrey POD 2; HHH chooses Sen. Edmund Muskie as he did IOTL. Leaves North Carolina and Kentucky with Nixon, but with Wallace POD 1 has no other substantial effect on other close races.


North Carolina: Wallace improves over Nixon. Nixon/Agnew 579,435 (36.5%) (-3%); Wallace/Chandler 542,923 (34.3%) (+ 3%); Humphrey/Muskie 464,113 (29.2%) (0)

Kentucky: Chandler's presence in his home state draws more Nixon votes to the Wallace/Chandler ticket: Nixon/Agnew 391,736 (37.1%) (-6.7%), Humphrey/Muskie 376,954 (35.7%) (-2%), , Wallace/Chandler 285,091 (27%) (+8.7%), Other 2,843


Electoral College Result

Humphrey/Muskie 272
Nixon/Agnew 201*
Wallace/Chandler 56*
Uncommitted** 9

* = includes faithless North Carolina Republican Elector Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey who casts his Electoral Votes for George C. Wallace and Albert B. Chandler.

** = anti-Chandler Wallace Electors


Incumbent President (36): Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Incumbent Vice President (38): Hubert H. Humphrey (D)

President-elect (37): Hubert H. Humphrey (D)
Vice President-elect (39): Edmund S. Muskie (D)

1968HHHwinwithMuskie.gif
 
Drew: Wallace didn't choose Chandler because "he's a liberal" and many of Wallace's financial backers threatened to cut the purse strings if he was chosen. As it was Nixon was overflowing with cash- Hubert and the DNC were broke, which had much to do with Johnson's continuing purges of allegedly disloyal employees. The results were clear during the primaries, when Kennedy was even with Nixon in fundraising and Hubert was nowhere.
 
Scenario Four: Wallace Wins POD George picks Chandler as his running mate. Vice President Humphrey sticks with Edmund Muskie and maybe words get out against Agnew's Corruption tarnishes the Nixon Campaign. Or Maybe George justs campaigns a hell of a lot harder in the Rust Belt with WWC's and get Nixon to submit to a three pronged debate. I actually think Wallace may come off looking better, and could possible narrowly swing the election into his favor....I would love for you to come up with Popular vote numbers for this scenario Drew, No joke...

genusmap.php


George A. Wallace/Happy Chandler: 271 Electoral Votes
Richard M. Nixon/Spiro Agnew: 139 Electoral Votes
Hubert H. Humprey/Edmund Muski: 128 Electoral Votes
 
Historico: I call ASB on that. Nixon would never agree to a debate with Wallace and refused to debate Humphrey, though Nixon would've likely won the debates. Agnew was hardly known in '68 "Spiro Who?". Humphrey only carried 38% of the white vote, and would be in distant third place among WWCs behind Nixon and Wallace. The NDC was disintegrating rapidly and the only person who could've reversed that was dead.
 
WI Humphrey picks Scoop Jackson? Would that help? IMO whether Kennedy or Humphrey is nominated, they have to pick either Sanford, Sanders or Donald Russell of South Carolina. Anyone else will lose them the election, or throw it into the House, where Wallace throws it to Nixon.
 
Drew: Wallace didn't choose Chandler because "he's a liberal" and many of Wallace's financial backers threatened to cut the purse strings if he was chosen. As it was Nixon was overflowing with cash- Hubert and the DNC were broke, which had much to do with Johnson's continuing purges of allegedly disloyal employees. The results were clear during the primaries, when Kennedy was even with Nixon in fundraising and Hubert was nowhere.


Chandler and Wallace were in agreement on most everything, what's more they personally liked each other; the only divide was Chandler's record on race, and that was what caused problems for GCW. He made-up stories about big money backers wanting to drop him if he chose Chandler, because he didn't want to admit that it was John Birchers and white sheet types that were driving the decision (the big money people didn't much care because they were investing in Wallace to split the Democratic vote - and - hold a gun to Nixon's head when the time came; no one who was serious in the campaign expected him to be elected President [and thus Chandler Vice President]) GCW didn't have the guts to tell Chandler to his face that he didn't want him after all. In fact six of the Wallace Electors who warned him off Chandler were Kentucky Electors, and in none of the models does GCW actually carry Kentucky. But even with non-committed Electors he stands a chance of denying the vote to either Humphrey or Nixon, and that's what he was really going for. In playing with the numbers, I presented a change of tactic on GCW's part as a game changer, to have something to work with.

Rouge Beaver said:
Hubert and the DNC were broke, which had much to do with Johnson's continuing purges of allegedly disloyal employees.

None of these models require the Democrats to spend more, or campaign more. In all of the Southern and border states (except NC) I've got HHH losing votes. Mainly, I have Wallace/Chandler being more attractive to borderline Nixon/Agnew voters (blue collar Democrats in most cases), and it is the drift across that line that allows Humphrey/Sanford (and Humphrey/Muskie in the third case) to come-up the middle between the difference and take extra states with no extra effort of their own. In NC I applied the Mondale-Minnesota, Carter-Georgia, principle to having Governor Sanford's name on the ballot (and gave the same to Chandler in Kentucky) based on regional pride. The smaller Democrat losses in the South, and holding pat in the North, is attributable to center and left Democrats who were already committed to the national Democratic ticket whether out of conviction or party loyalty who voted for HHH with Muskie anyway. If anything, they may underestimate what effect Sanford may have had on wavering centrists (if only by very small margins, but 1968 was a small margin election).

He (GCW) dumped Chandler, and he shrank from confronting him, even by telephone. Instead (he sent three aides to do it). Afraid to generate publicity that would add to Wallace's racial patina, they blurred the reasons for pulling the rug from under the Kentuckian, leaving the impression that some well-heeled Southwestern oil interests had threatened to withdraw their support from Wallace with Chandler on the ticket. ... (except on race) on just about every other issue the two men were in sync - law-and-order, greater fiscal responsibility, less federalism and a "win-or-get-out" Vietnam policy.
 
Scenario Four: Wallace Wins POD George picks Chandler as his running mate. Vice President Humphrey sticks with Edmund Muskie and maybe words get out against Agnew's Corruption tarnishes the Nixon Campaign. Or Maybe George justs campaigns a hell of a lot harder in the Rust Belt with WWC's and get Nixon to submit to a three pronged debate. I actually think Wallace may come off looking better, and could possible narrowly swing the election into his favor....I would love for you to come up with Popular vote numbers for this scenario Drew, No joke...

genusmap.php


George A. Wallace/Happy Chandler: 271 Electoral Votes
Richard M. Nixon/Spiro Agnew: 139 Electoral Votes
Hubert H. Humprey/Edmund Muski: 128 Electoral Votes



Historico: Nixon will never debate on television; his 1960 experience soured him on the idea for good. He was willing to go down in 1968 rather than debate Humphrey on TV. Neither wanted to give Wallace a national platform. An early exposure of Agnew’s corruption could hurt the Republicans, particularly if Nixon is forced to change running mates in October (another potential POD – although it would have to start earlier in the year to bring Agnew’s activities out in the form of an indictment or a lawsuit).

For this scenario to happen, something else serious would have to happen involving Nixon (exposure of his secret messages to Thieu, widespread publicity of his having seen Dr. Hutschnecker, his Bahamian pay-offs come out) and something would have to happen on the Democratic side too (early publication of the Pentagon papers? An atrocity in Vietnam in October (early exposure of My Lai?), enough to drive down popular vote for both candidates and allow Wallace to come-up the middle in a protest vote (He needs about 34% - 38% of the popular vote in the States you've identified). Wallace’s position on the War was ‘either win it or get out.’ Between September and his choice of LeMay in October, he was actually picking-up support from former Gene McCarthy supporters who saw Wallace – despite his segregationist views – as the anti-establishment candidate (Lesher remarks on Wallace’s stunned encounter with a group of ‘Hippies for Wallace’ on one of his northern swings). All that fell away once LeMay started talking about irradiated crabs and bombing them back to the stone age.
 
Food for thought. :cool: I wasn't aware of the dynamics between Wallace and Chandler- Wallace is one of the few personalities from the period I haven't studied in detail. Ironically, Wallace will elect the Democratic ticket if both Hubert and GCW pick their Veeps well. I can only imagine Wallace's rage when his Alabaman psephologists explain what happened. :p Another thing I never understood: why on earth did Hubert pick Muskie IOTL? He didn't bring anything to the ticket.
 
WI Humphrey picks Scoop Jackson? Would that help? IMO whether Kennedy or Humphrey is nominated, they have to pick either Sanford, Sanders or Donald Russell of South Carolina. Anyone else will lose them the election, or throw it into the House, where Wallace throws it to Nixon.

A tough talking hawk like Jackson might actually hurt Humphrey, because it might make the Democratic ticket look like they want to prolong the war, more of the same as under LBJ. HHH was down in the polls until he stepped out of LBJ’s war policy, and LBJ reciprocated by halting the bombing. My guess, Jackson would have been a millstone for HHH (or Kennedy – assuming you mean RFK – RFK could be tough enough on his own, didn’t need a hawk), reminding voters why they didn’t want to vote for Johnson’s Vice President (and Republican hawks would go for the real thing in Nixon anyway). Democratic ticket needs a Southerner, or someone who can appeal to working class and Roman Catholic voters in Ohio, NJ, IL and CA, enough to steal a small share of them back from Nixon and Wallace.

Rouge Beaver said:
or throw it into the House, where Wallace throws it to Nixon.

Or they play let’s make a deal before the Electoral College meets. If Wallace has enough electors to swing it, then I think RMN and GCW would reach a deal before December, motivating Wallace to release enough Electors to elect RMN, and avoid taking any chances in the House (Nixon wouldn’t want to be stuck with a Democratic Vice President if he can avoid it).
 
Drew: Nixon could work out a deal with Hubert to exclude Wallace if he wanted to. I don't understand what the problem was: Nixon would have wiped the floor with Humphrey if it was just the two of them debating. All Nixon has to do is repeat ad infinitum that Hubert is Lyndon's stand-in and his tool. Dems are vulnerable on all fronts, both foreign and domestic.
 
Drew: I agree with you about the Catholic and WWC vote (though IMO Hizzonor will *take care of* IL). No one is taking California away from Nixon.
 
1968 PODs

Points for discussion: What effect would the following PODs have on the 1968 race: either alone or in any combination?

1. Agnew’s Maryland corruption is exposed in Sept/Oct and Nixon is forced to replace his running mate?

2.1 Nixon’s visit to New York psychiatrist (he was actually an internist who practiced psychiatry as a side-line) Dr. Arnold Hutschnecker receives wide publicity?

2.2 Dr. Hutschnecker was an anti-Nazi with some leftist connections from before World War II in Austria. Someone smears Nixon for having paid regular visits to a ‘pinko.’ I.E. ‘Either he’s a dupe or a closet red’?

3. Someone leaks the details of Nixon’s secret communications with Thieu with enough evidence to allow a major news outlet to run with it before Election Day?

4. Something like Kent State happens in the Fall of 1968?

5. My Lai (March 1968) is exposed in the Fall of 1968?

6. Apollo 7 suffers a catastrophic launch pad fire (October 11, 1968) similar to what happened to Apollo 1?

7. Ellsberg (or someone else) leaks a preliminary draft of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in the Fall of 1968?

8. President Thieu is overthrown by a military junta in 1968?

9. LBJ has his fatal heart attack on March 22, 1968 instead of January 22, 1973?

10. Wicker et al. are right and RFK doesn't win the nomination, but has enough muscle to get on the ticket as HHH's running mate?

Wikipedia said:
However, other writers such as Tom Wicker, who covered the Kennedy campaign for The New York Times, believe that Humphrey's large lead in delegate votes from non-primary states, combined with Senator McCarthy's refusal to quit the race, would have prevented Kennedy from ever winning a majority at the Democratic Convention, and that Humphrey would have been the Democratic nominee even if Kennedy had lived. The journalist Richard Reeves and historian Michael Beschloss have both written that Humphrey was the likely nominee, and RFK's own campaign manager, future Democratic National Committee chairman Larry O'Brien, wrote in his memoirs that Kennedy's chances of winning the nomination had been slim, even after his win in California.

11. RFK is wounded and has to withdraw from the race in 1968. He still has political influence. Does he help HHH or tank him for an opening in 72?

12. Same as 11, but RFK is paralyzed as Wallace was in 72?
 
1: Not happening, no one's heard of Agnew. "Spiro Who?" Almost like Palin in that way: nationally unknown, then you wish you'd never known them.

2: Not with the media's pre-Watergate SOPs still in effect.

3: Not happening: Hubert didn't have the guts to do that.

4: Possible, though that would only help Nixon and Wallace to say that "law and order" are empty words under a Democratic administration.

5: I don't think so.

6: I don't see how that affects the election.

7: He didn't get outraged until the Army chose not to prosecute Rheault, which hadn't yet happened.

8: Not happening: Thieu had already established his dominance over AVM Ky, otherwise known as the right-wing Chavez. Remember, Thieu was still a three-star in all but name, like Musharraf later.

9: Perhaps.

10: I don't see how Kennedy doesn't win the nomination if he lives. He's clearly the strongest candidate in every category, and the bosses, specifically Hizzonor, will realize that. If you put the fatal round (which hit the "switchboard" IOTL) an extra cm further back, that's three weeks convalescence with no permanent side effects. If they somehow pull off a miracle with the OTL brain damage, then Kennedy will likely be mentally impaired, perhaps in a wheelchair, for the rest of his life.
 
Drew: Nixon could work out a deal with Hubert to exclude Wallace if he wanted to. I don't understand what the problem was: Nixon would have wiped the floor with Humphrey if it was just the two of them debating. All Nixon has to do is repeat ad infinitum that Hubert is Lyndon's stand-in and his tool. Dems are vulnerable on all fronts, both foreign and domestic.

IMO RMN would have made a deal with Wallace and then double-crossed him at the first opportunity. IOTL he invested heavily in trying to keep Wallace out of the AL Governor's office in 1970, even while he courted his support as part of the Southern strategy. He then made efforts to buy-off Wallace during the 72 campaign, all the while trying to dig-up dirt on his taxes and personal life. (They did smear George Wallace's older brother in the process).

No doubt Nixon the candidate would have done very well against HHH in televised debates. However, Richard Nixon the man wouldn't do it, no matter what his aides did to try and persuade him. The answer as to why is a psychological, not political.
 
I agree completely: Nixon had psychological issues regarding debating. IOTL Nixon said that there were two Humphreys, the former red-hot liberal and the LBJ tool, and he'd debate the winner of HHH's ideological debate. Humphrey called him "Richard the Chickenhearted" in response. :p
 
Apollo was a key psychological factor of the late sixties; the Apollo one fire in 1967 was a blow to American self-esteem and the sense that they were on top in science.

<p>
Wikipedia said:
Apollo 8 came at the end of 1968, a year that had seen much upheaval around the world. Yet, TIME magazine chose the crew of Apollo 8 as their Men of the Year for 1968, recognizing them as the people who most influenced events in the preceding year. They had been the first people ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body. They had survived a mission that even the crew themselves had rated as only having a fifty-fifty chance of fully succeeding. The effect of Apollo 8 can be summed up by a telegram from a stranger, received by Borman after the mission, that simply stated, "Thank you Apollo 8. You saved 1968."
</p>

When, at the end of 1968, a woman wrote to Frank Borman (who read from Genesis while orbintnig the moon at Christmas 1968) 'thank-you for saving 1968' she expressed a feeling among middle Americans (the so-called silent majority) that Apollo made sense of America amidst the madness of Vietnam and the breakdown of the 'old order at home.' Apollo 8's orbit of the moon was the sign that America could still do what it promised, and that the hope was still there after so much had been lost. For liberals, Apollo was the last tangible connection to the Kennedy era and Apollo 8 in December 1968, and Apollo 11's landing in July 1969, were the fulfillment of the lost Kennedy presidency. These were powerful symbols of national emotion that transcended party or individual political figures.

LBJ understood this when he pushed for Apollo 8 to orbit the moon (it was originally designated for Apollo 9's mission, to test the LEM in Earth orbit) because he understood what the symbolism would mean to the nation. There was a competitive issue with the USSR as well, but there was no need for Apollo 8 to orbit the moon from a program perspective (that was originally 9's job for 1969).

RMN tacitly acknowledged the same emotional connection when he ordered that the USS John F Kennedy, which had been tasked by the Navy to recover the Apollo 11 capsule, be replaced with another carrier, the USS Hornet

The question my POD posits - what would the emotional impact be - and its subsequent effect on the election - if that symbolic last vestige of American hope were to go wrong in the same year that saw the death of Martin Luther King and RFK. Could 1968 be saved afterall?

Agnew's corruption was exposed by accident during an investigation into the tax evasion of a Baltimore County engineering firm - no one was looking for dirt on Agnew, and for the first six months of the investigation the prosecutors assumed Agnew had not been involved - until he sent his lawyer to see US Attorney George Beall and proclaimed his innocence - an odd action for someone who should not have been aware of what was, up until then, a secret probe. Agnew made himself a suspect. Keep in mind that in 1973 the US Attorney and his staff were Republicans. Had it come to the surface in 1968, the prosecutors involved would have been Democrats.

Tax investigations were not unique to 1973, it could have happened anytime, and tax fraud and public corrupton were investigated well before Watergate. Imagine the effect of the headline AGNEW INDICTED in October 1968. Spiro Who becomes Spiro crook - and, oh by the way, isn't he running with Tricky Dick? If the Democrats didn't want to make anything out of it, Wallace would have.
 
I think the loss of Apollo 8 would be sad, but it wouldn't affect the election one way or another other than a brief moratorium on campaigning. Re Agnew: all he has to do is keep his mouth shut and no one will ever know.
 
Top