Question if Reagan is Republican nominee in 1968

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If Reagan is nominee, does Wallace still run?

If not, that should favor Reagan for the general.

Will his rhetoric on Vietnam be more Goldwaterian or Nixonian?

If it is Goldwaterian is there any way he can still win?
 
David T said in https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...water-becomes-president.431556/#post-16111017 that Goldwater's rhetoric on the Vietnam War was "win or get out" and that might have appeal among voters.

True, but the moderate Nixon who had a long standing reputation as a statesman could only barely beat Humphrey. Reagan was still seen as a right wing extremist and didn't have Nixon's (perceived) credibility on foreign policy. Even without Wallace (who took votes from both parties in 1968, not just Nixon) I think Humphrey would have a strong chance of beating Reagan. If only narrowly.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So Amadeus, given Reagan's association with Goldwater, is that a kiss of death politically with the Vietnam War at its height?

Perhaps the country could not feel "safe" voting for Reagan during the Vietnam War.

--What if instead of '68, say Humphrey beats Nixon in '68, accelerates withdrawal from South Vietnam and South Vietnam falls before the 1972 election.
Could that actually boost Reagan's prospects for both the nomination and winning the general election in 1972, because if Reagan is crying over the spilt milk of the Democrats' already lost Vietnam War, right-leaning uber-patriots can take a harder-line rhetorical stand without having to actually back it up in the jungles of Vietnam?
 
I think that Wallace would stay in the race for a variety of reasons, not least of which his certainty that he could still throw the election and become kingmaker. Interestingly, Reagan's campaign seriously considered asking Edward Brooke, the Senator from Massachusetts, a relatively liberal Republican, and a black man, to be his running mate in the event that Reagan won the nomination in a bid to win the black vote and add geographical and ideological diversity to the ticket. This could have backfired and caused Wallace to gain traction in the South, Midwest, and elsewhere.
 
So Amadeus, given Reagan's association with Goldwater, is that a kiss of death politically with the Vietnam War at its height?

No. But 1968 wasn't 1980: the conservative movement wasn't so dominant in either the GOP or the country as a whole. 1964 was still fresh in people's minds and the charge that Reagan was a right wing extremist would gain much more traction. The economy was good, Texas was still in the Democratic column, and unlike Carter Humphrey was an intuitive politician who knew how to energize his electoral coalition. I'm not necessarily saying Reagan would lose; the war and the riots were genuinely unpopular and he could capitalize on this like Nixon did. But unlike 1980 he'd be facing an uphill battle and if Nixon won only narrowly then the odds of a Reagan victory are far from great.
 
True, but the moderate Nixon who had a long standing reputation as a statesman could only barely beat Humphrey. Reagan was still seen as a right wing extremist and didn't have Nixon's (perceived) credibility on foreign policy. Even without Wallace (who took votes from both parties in 1968, not just Nixon) I think Humphrey would have a strong chance of beating Reagan. If only narrowly.

Sorry for the late reply but, Reagan wanted to have a liberal running mate if he was the Republican nominee in 1968, in order to create party unity and not be perceived as an extremist. Both Charles Percy and Ed Brooke were considered.
 
Sorry for the late reply but, Reagan wanted to have a liberal running mate if he was the Republican nominee in 1968, in order to create party unity and not be perceived as an extremist. Both Charles Percy and Ed Brooke were considered.

I don't think it'd be enough. I don't think a VP choice alone would ease the minds of any that saw Reagan as an extremist and a liberal VP choice could depress Conservative turnout the way his announcement of Schweicker in 1976 did. I think HHH beats Reagan, even if only narrowly.
 
One of things that is not remembered is that Reagan in 1968 is not the “Morning in America” of 1984 that people generally think of Reagan today.
He was much more blatant in his use of “Code Words” and “Dog Whistles” and that would have hurt him just as much as it did Goldwater in ‘64.
A lot of support for Nixon was for his vague promise to get out of the Vietnam War “with honor” and Reagan was for keeping fighting the war until victory.
Humphrey was way behind Nixon until he pledged to get out of the war, so if Reagan was the nominee then Humphrey if he still makes the pledge could have won comfortably.
 
Top