Reagan in 1968

I saw a couple threads on this but they were rather old and I wanted some new perspectives, and yes, I did read Icarus Falls.

First off, how likely is it for Reagan to win in '68? He was always an excellent debater and very charismatic, but is it enough to fend off Nixon considering his lack of experience. Who does he choose as his running mate, and if he wins, what does a Reagan administration look like in 1968, does he win a second term etc.

What kind of domestic policies would he have, how does he act on civil rights, NASA, the energy crisis, the environment etc. What would change culturally with him in office, with no Watergate and his charisma does the public never lose it's trust in government, how would positivity in the '70s change things.

What does his foreign policy look like, without Nixon does rapprochement with China happen, does detente break down, what would happen with the SALT treaties etc. What does he do during the Yom Kippur War and Vietnam, how does defense procurements and policy change etc. Any additional contributions or ideas are welcome.
 
I think Humphrey (assuming he's still the nominee) would narrowly beat Reagan, the only Democrat that ran that year, in my view, that would lose to Reagan is Gene McCarthy. Reagan was much more fringe and unpolished in the '60s and '70s than he was in 1980.

If for whatever reason he did win, however, he would try to govern very conservatively at first and the get clobbered in the 1970 midterms. After '70, if he governs to the center domestically like Nixon did OTL, he gets a second term, if not, you get President Muskie or Humphrey (probably the former) in 1972.
 
It's entirely unlikely for Reagan to come remotely close to winning the Republican nomination. He was a Goldwaterite in an era in which the GOP was getting more radical, but was still a moderate party. If Nixon chooses not to run, a bunch of other candidates will rise and one of them is bound to beat the Goldwaterite. If he were to win by some miracle, he'd choose someone moderate and experienced from the Northeast. He's gonna have some pretty narrow options for it because everyone in a moderate region is going to be running scared of him.

If we handwave his victory in the GOP, he's gonna lose to Humphrey. Humphrey almost beat Nixon, and he was mainstream candidate that united the party around him. Humphrey probably has experience tarnishing candidates for being right-wing from 1964. He's gonna call Reagan a Goldwaterite and a number of other things. The American people are going to listen and I think that voter turnout will be down, but Humphrey is gonna win a commanding victory over Reagan. Humphrey was just as charismatic as Reagan, and he was even optimistic and cheerful, two attributed that defined Reagan IOTL.

If by some miracle he won, his administration would be a disaster. He would bring up deregulation laws that would be anathema to everyone in Congress except for some radicals and would veto liberal legislation. I think the Democrats are going to win 1972 in a landslide. Reagan's ultraconservatism was out of touch with the political climate of the era. He was opposed to the Civil Rights Act because of "states' rights". Unlike Nixon, he's not gonna do anything to help blacks. He's gonna cut NASA, an "unnecessary program", and he's not gonna be in power during the energy crisis. He's gonna veto environmental legislation and he's gonna try to cutake welfare only to be opposed by virtually everyone in Congress.
 
A lot of the Southern delegations were willing to bolt to Reagan as it was, and it was largely due to a mix of Unit-voting and Storm Thurmond's endorsement of Nixon that Reagan's delegate strength at the convention wasn't stronger than it was. If Thurmond were to remain neutral you could end up with maybe four or five delegations swinging Reagan's way, leading to a several ballots where the remaining delegates in the West and South slowly by surely swing Reagan's way. Its a tainted victory given he wasn't a real contender in the way Nixon was and he was far behind, but its a victory nonetheless. Maybe to soften the blow Nixon is promised a cabinet position and Congressmen Rogers Morton, Nixon's floor manager, is made Reagan's running-mate.

From there it depends on how you perceive each candidate would perform. I don't see Reagan shying away from a debate with Humphrey the way Nixon did, the results of which are up in the air before the likely reinforcement of each candidate's base. Reagan, while losing more Moderate voters unless he tones down his rhetoric, is also likely to take a lot of Wallace's support, which may offset those losses in the Midwest and allow him to pick up states such as Texas and Arkansas (maybe Georgia) at the cost of New Jersey, Delaware and Vermont.
 
Just a few points, yes Humphrey nearly beat Nixon, but this was with Wallace taking 13% of the vote. OTL Nixon and Wallace voters would not support Humphrey and Reagan like Goldwater had big appeal in the South, if Wallace drops out to support Reagan this could give him the edge over Humphrey.

By 1968 Goldwater wasn't the pariah he was in 1964 so the comparisons wouldn't be as effective against Reagan, not to mention that Reagan would be underestimated by Humphrey potentially allowing an upset in the debates.

I'm not as informed on the economics aspect but I do know that this was before "supply-side" economics was even a thing, so while he would be more libertarian socially I doubt he would strive for tax cuts and deregulation as much. And looking at his governorship of California he presided over the largest tax increases in the state's history, maybe he does something similar nationally to balance the budget?
 

I doubt that Reagan is gonna take much of Wallace's support. A big part of Wallace's appeal was his left-wing economics and his folksy speaking style, two things that Reagan won't have. I think Wallace will do worse, but will win a similar number of states and nowhere near enough to give Reagan victory. Moderates will either vote Humphrey or stay home, and there will be no debates because of the Communications Act of 1964, which has a provision giving all candidates an equal amount of time, no matter how small, so the news stations would have to give airtime to the Socialist candidate, to Wallace etc. If there was a debate, I agree the winner of the debates would be in the air if they were allowed, but there would be no debates.
 
Reagan is too hawkish to win in 1968. Also Wallace is not going to drop out in his favor. I have identified the weakest Republicans in presidential elections. They would be 2016 Donald Trump, 2012 Herman Caine, 2008 Rudi Giulani, 1992 1996 Pat Buchanan, 1988 Pat Robertson, 1980 Phil Crane, 1968 Ronald Reagan and 1964 Barry Goldwater,
 
Top