President Richard M Nixon: 1965-1973

What if Nixon won the California gubernatorial in 1962 and thus was the nominee in 1964 and won?

I don't think he could beat LBJ, but I think it'd be a real race against Kennedy. Otherwise, perhaps Kennedy picks Smathers and Nixon runs against him in 1964.
 
Last edited:
No way anybody beats Kennedy in 1964. Not Rockefeller, not Goldwater, not Nixon. The only Republican candidate who the Kennedys were scared of was George Romney, but he took himself out of the running for '64. As for Nixon, had he won in 1962 as expected then he'd probably be put forward as a compromise candidate in 1964 and win the nomination. The problem here is that in 1962 he promised not to run for President, the Democrats would use this to show "Tricky Dick's" dishonesty and it would cripple him in the general election. In 1964 the economy was good and the country had just come off JFK's successful handling of the Missile Crisis and the Nuclear Test Ban. Had JFK survived, then in 1964 he'd be leading the bipartisan effort to pass the Civil Rights Act. The political winds would be at his sails and he'd be re-elected. At that point Nixon's national career is over, and I imagine he'd be unpopular in his home state too for breaking his promise not to run for President in 1964.

Against LBJ, Nixon would be utterly crushed. FWIW, in his memoirs Nixon said that if he'd won in 1962 then he'd have been drafted to run in 1964, only to become a second "Tom Dewey" and lose twice in a row. With Nixon out of the picture in 1968, I imagine that Rockefeller would be the party establishment's choice and he'd cruise to victory over Humphrey.
 
Against LBJ, Nixon would be utterly crushed. FWIW, in his memoirs Nixon said that if he'd won in 1962 then he'd have been drafted to run in 1964, only to become a second "Tom Dewey" and lose twice in a row. With Nixon out of the picture in 1968, I imagine that Rockefeller would be the party establishment's choice and he'd cruise to victory over Humphrey.

Generally agreed with the rest of what you said, but i'm curious about this part. Why do you think Rockefeller would easily defeat Humphrey in 1968? He's the embodiment of liberal Republicanism, and I think he'd have a difficult time employing the "Southern Strategy" (if it even appealed to him, which I doubt it would). I'd think that a Humphrey v. Rockefeller v. Wallace (assuming he still goes third party, which he's guaranteed to here) race in 68 would result in a deadlocked Electoral College. I can see Rockefeller barely eeking out an EC victory, but certainly not "cruising to victory."

As for the OP, again, agreed with Amadeus. Against Kennedy or Johnson in 1964, he'd be defeated for a variety of reasons; for starters, if he's drafted as a compromise candidate, that's going to mean a lot of angry conservatives who either sit out the race or go for a third party (perhaps Wallace if he runs here, or someone else). Republican turnout will be down for that reason alone, while Democrats at least of the non-Dixicrat variety will be excited based on the good economy, the handling of the various foreign policy issues, and the prospect of Civil Rights (as well as the sympathy vote, if we go with a scenario where JFK is still assassinated). And then of course, there's the fact that once again Nixon is reneging on his statements that he wouldn't run. It may not necessarily be a blowout, but Nixon would lose nonetheless. I think he'd do better against a surviving Kennedy, but still lose.
 
I don't get this argument that Conservatives will vote for Wallace. He wasn't a conservative, he was a racist New Dealer. It's generally agreed in 1968 that he pulled from Nixon in the South but Humphrey everywhere else.


If it's Nixon vs Kennedy in 1964, what are the odds that there's a Dixiecrat candidate that runs? The "No Southern Strategy" timeline had Ross Barnett running against LBJ and Barry Goldwater in 1964. If Nixon is running as the Civil Rights Candidate and Kennedy is wishy-washy on the issue (as he sort of was OTL) I could see Barnett or some other Dixiecrat hurting him.
 
I don't get this argument that Conservatives will vote for Wallace. He wasn't a conservative, he was a racist New Dealer. It's generally agreed in 1968 that he pulled from Nixon in the South but Humphrey everywhere else.

My point wasn't that they'd all go for Wallace, just that many of them wouldn't want to go for the moderate-to-liberal loser of the last election and therefore either not vote or seek out another candidate, with Wallace just being the first one to come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if some hardcore conservative Republican decided to bolt and go third party or independent in this election, with essentially the same goal as Wallace in '68; to simply deny any candidate 270, and then seek concessions from any/all sides in exchange for their support.
 
Generally agreed with the rest of what you said, but i'm curious about this part. Why do you think Rockefeller would easily defeat Humphrey in 1968? He's the embodiment of liberal Republicanism, and I think he'd have a difficult time employing the "Southern Strategy" (if it even appealed to him, which I doubt it would). I'd think that a Humphrey v. Rockefeller v. Wallace (assuming he still goes third party, which he's guaranteed to here) race in 68 would result in a deadlocked Electoral College. I can see Rockefeller barely eeking out an EC victory, but certainly not "cruising to victory."

Rockefeller would lose in most of the South (with the exceptions of Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida) but he would make up the difference by winning New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Washington. That puts him at 363 electoral votes to Humphrey's 98, a crushing defeat. Wallace would get roughly 77 votes. Rockefeller was hated by conservative hardliners, but broadly popular with the country at large. Polls showed him easily beating Lyndon Johnson in 1968, and in May 1968 Gallup had him leading Humphrey by 7%. In June however Humphrey was leading Rocky 39% to 36%, but at the same time he was leading Nixon 42% to 36%. This is before the August 1968 Democratic Convention turned the tide against Humphrey, and by September Nixon was leading HHH by 17%. With Rockefeller that margin is going to be even bigger, and he is likely to maintain a large lead if he takes up Humphrey's offer for a debate (and does well) and hits the Democrats on law & order while supporting Medicare and civil rights. As for the scrambling of the Peace Talks that won Nixon the election, the talks almost certainly would've broken down before the election anyway because of Thieu's unwillingness to deal. So Rockefeller wins and by a comfortable margin.

If it's Nixon vs Kennedy in 1964, what are the odds that there's a Dixiecrat candidate that runs? The "No Southern Strategy" timeline had Ross Barnett running against LBJ and Barry Goldwater in 1964. If Nixon is running as the Civil Rights Candidate and Kennedy is wishy-washy on the issue (as he sort of was OTL) I could see Barnett or some other Dixiecrat hurting him.

Without Goldwater, Wallace certainly runs in 1964 and he loses badly.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
Don't believe anyone could have beaten LBJ in 1964. Just too many sympathy votes. As it was, Johnson curbstomped Goldwater, 486 to 52, and 43 million popular votes to 27 million. Remember that well.
 
I don't get this argument that Conservatives will vote for Wallace. He wasn't a conservative, he was a racist New Dealer. It's generally agreed in 1968 that he pulled from Nixon in the South but Humphrey everywhere else.
”I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government."
George Wallace, 1968
 
What if Nixon won the California gubernatorial in 1962 and thus was the nominee in 1964 and won?
Would he be? One of the accusations levelled against Nixon during the campaign was that he wasn't really interested in California or the governorship other than as a stepping stone to relaunching his national political career, it's not going to look too good if he then runs out on the position only a year and a half into the term to start campaigning for president. There's also the question of whether Nixon would want to run, Kennedy in a rematch—not counting Johnson with the sympathy vote—was considered unlikely to be beatable. Nixon himself doesn't help, he apparently put out some tentative feelers about running again in 1964 but is also quoted as viewing the governorship as a good way of avoiding being forced into becoming the Republican's designated sacrifice.

For Nixon the best outcome would be to win the gubernatorial election in 1962, serve the full term, use being in office to avoid being the Republican candidate whilst campaigning for others and banking support, decline to run for re-election, and then bide his time until 1968.
 
Top