Who does Reagan choose as his running mate/VP in this Scenario? Assuming that the Stop Nixon movement within the GOP Is a hella of alot successfull in TTL...Might he go with Romney to assure his coalation goes to Reagan side or possibly Rockefeller...Winthrop of Arkansas that is?
I know the Nixon VP options but I'm less sure about Reagan although they tend to be similar—albeit for different reasons.
Off-hand I'd lean towards Senator Hatfield of Oregon. He's a liberal, yes, but a Western liberal (with all that implies to the GOP conservative base) with the main stumbling block being his opposition to the War. He's also hard to classify, leaning towards libertarianism on some issues but also towards more US liberal positions on other things.
If Viet Nam outweighs other issues for Reagan, than I could see a few other people. Senator Case of NJ is a close Rockefeller ally and would represent an olive branch to the Rockefeller Republicans as would Governor Volpe of Massachusetts.
Governor Rhodes of Ohio is a bit of an in-between choice. Certainly more conservative than the two above (see Kent State, and his general attitude towards protesters), but also runs the key state of Ohio which forces him to take something of a centrist tack on other issues.
In addition to the above there are a few Senators that fit the bill: Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois is a strong supporter of civil rights and generally moderate-to-liberal but is also one of the strongest supporters for the Viet Nam War.
Senator Jacob Javits of NY would be (as with most of Reagan's VP picks, given how conservative he was compared to the rest of the elected GOP in '68) an olive branch to the Rockefeller Republicans and would give Reagan a solid shot at winning New York.
There are three outside-the-box choices:
General Westmoreland represents Reagan doubling-down on the issue of Viet Nam confident that the majority of the American public don't want to withdrawn and leave their allies in the lurch (as the Democratic position would certainly be defined by the Reagan for President campaign).
Senator Margaret Smith of Maine for the obvious reasons: she's a woman and she's a liberal. Nevertheless the symbolism (especially in '68) of having a woman on the ticket may shut up the base and represents a pointed attack on a number of otherwise safe Democratic states.
Senator Edward Brooke, of Massachusetts for equally obvious reasons: he's a black man, and a liberal Republican. This would be in a certain sense, nuts. However Reagan putting him on the ticket is an instant safeguard against Democratic attacks, represents in some ways more work on civil rights than the Democrats have ever managed, and is an olive branch towards the Rockefeller Republicans. The key question is thus: will the Southern United States vote for a black man as the second on a ticket? Given Reagan's popularity in the South, given the potential for Northern black votes, and given the potential for higher black turn-out in the South (for the Republicans!) this would be an essentially unbeatable ticket… if the South didn't rebel against it.
Also If we do see a stronger Black Nationalistic movement during Reagan's first term due to Anti-busing laws which causes Reagan to sow up the South...Might the Democrats instead of Running a Mcgovern candidate esp if it looks like we may actually "Win" the war in Vietnam, give the nomination to a Hawk like Scoop Jackson? If so and he runs on a Foreign Policy and National Security Platform, might the Dems make more of an effort to get the votes of Blacks by pushing Shirley Chisholm as a VP Candidate esp to dismay the idea of Jackson as a Racist?
It would, in all honesty, be hard to out-hawk Reagan on the Viet Nam War. That said—and depending on the Republican nominee in '76—Scoop Jackson would probably one of two-three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in '76.
1972, probably, comes down as it did before: Humphrey vs. McGovern. However Reagan's domestic policy (whatever he does) is certainly more conservative than any President since Coolidge (in the same sense that Ford was the most conservative President since Coolidge) which puts the Democrats back to making a choice: class warfare, which works if done by somebody good; or McGovern's upper class liberalism… which doesn't work.
The Kennedy's got it, they always cared more about the blue collar working class than the reforming McGovern/McCarthy wing of the Democratic Party. In this time period there are few leading Democrats who would approach it the same way. Ironically Humphrey would, but could never translate that into votes.
Assuming the Viet Nam War is going somewhat well and that Reagan's domestic policy has been somewhat popular then there is no real way for the Democrats to win. Scoop Jackson can't out-hawk Reagan, and McGovern's withdrawal approach won't win either.
I'd probably consider McGovern the '72 contender—he wrote the new rulebook for primaries, his get-out-of-Viet-Nam approach would be more powerful to the Left in our ATL '72, and Hubert Humphrey likely falls short as he did IOTL.
1976 is interesting, and obviously depends on Reagan's VP.
For the Democrats, though, a line-up similar to OTL would be a given. Mo' Udall for the liberal wing, Scoop Jackson for the hawk foreign policy wing, a centrist or two, a few other minor figures. No Watergate kills the free money so less Democrats will run, and no Watergate also kills the chances of the reforming fresh face Democrats like Carter.
I'm going to throw out one of my favourite politicians: Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Unlike most liberals of the time period he understood the problems confronting the poor, and especially how the impact of helping black people destroyed the Democratic Party with working class white people. He was neoconservative on foreign policy (of the Scoop Jackson school) and—shockingly for a liberal of the time period—agreed with conservatives on the limitations of government. On the other hand he was also perhaps the best politician to spell out that yes, throwing money at problems does solve them sometimes, that the Great Society (for all its failures) also had a number of successes, and in general represented the dying wing of the Democratic Party that understood class and how to fight Republicans on foreign policy.
Now his problem is that he wasn't elected IOTL until '76 (serving in four Presidential administrations instead: JFK, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford) and of course he was the author of the deeply controversial (though also pretty much dead on) Moynihan Report on the weakness of black family strucutre as one of, if not
the, key problem in the black community.
He's a throwback to pre-McGovern liberals, he's a hawk on foreign policy (as with Scoop Jackson this matters if Viet Nam goes well under Reagan), and unlike other throwbacks (Mondale) or the new liberals (McGovern, Dukakis) he can fight back against Republicans.
Good work Electric Monk. Would he handle the relations to the protestors better?
If by "better" you mean a whole bunch of Kent State type situations… then yes!
Honestly I think he'd probably crack down, which would mean a whole bunch more violence. However, this does depend on well his foreign and domestic policy is going—if well, then he has a free hand to crack down; if poorly, he has to consider other factors.