RFK survives

MrHola

Banned
June 5, 1968: As Robert Kennedy shook hands with the hotel staff and other well-wishers in the hotel pantry, a man stepped forward and yelled: ''Kennedy, you son of a bitch!'' before opening fire.

Bobby never knew what happened as he suddenly fell on the floor, being covered by the dead body of the maître d' Karl Uecker who flung himself in front of the assassins weapon. The hotel staff and several bystanders managed to disarm the assassin.

XXX

So, this scenario probably sucks, but let's say RFK survives the assassination attempt. He would probably run for president and probably win. But then what? Who would be his running mate, Eugene McCarthy? How would he deal with Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War etc.?
 
I doubt McCarthy would have been his running mate. Kennedy was already running an insurgent campaign in direct opposition to McCarthy's. Likely RFK would have gone for a more centrist figure. I doubt McCarthy would have even accepted if he'd been offered. How about Daniel Moore?
 
1) Without Nixon to go to China, relations with the PRC remain almost non-existant to frigid. Perhaps war develops over the status of Taiwan a few decades down the line. Perhaps Deng Xiaopeng's opening of Chinese industry does not happen. Even if it does, American investors may not be the main participants.

2) Richard Nixon goes crazy having lost the White House twice, both times to the brothers Kennedy. He becomes a recluse until re-discovering his Quaker roots. By 1990, Reverend Nixon has lead Quakerism to renewed popularity in the 4th Great Awakening.

3) RFK is determined to undo his brother's biggest mistake, Vietnam. He negotiates a quick withdrawal and repudiates "the domnio theory." The War on Poverty continues unabated. The National Service Administration replaces the draft by 1972, dedicated to JFK's signature "ask not what your country can do for you...". Young people across the nation flock to the NSA, taking much of the wind out of the sails of youth counter-culture.
 
I read an AH story on this very subject. The author speculated that Humphrey would still get the nomination. His arguments were HHH still enjoyed more party organization support. He would change his Vietnam policy in June instead of October. McCarthy would be friendly to Humphrey than to Kennedy. The change came when Kennedy accepted the offer to run as Vice President and with a more unified party the Humphrey Kennedy ticket wins. I would say in this scenario Vice President _Kennedy loses in the bad economic times of 1976. He could come back in 1980 and defeat a Republican president during times of bad inflation, unemployment and a hostage crisis.
 
Wasn't there enough "dirt" on RFK to prohibit him from reaching high office? Seems like the links to Marilyn Monroe & his involvement in the stupid assassination attempts on Castro would have come to light somewhere in early 70s and been enough of an embarrassment to prevent him from reaching higher office.
 
i don´t know of any reputable biographer of RFK who talked about links to Marilyn Monroe. You do have a point his involvement in assassination attempts on Castro would have become public knowledge by the 70s. He political career would have depended on his ability to explain himself.
 
President Robert Kennedy

(My stuff from that thread, since nothing has changed since I wrote it.)

The problem for the Democratic Party of 1968 was the convention. Oh lots of other things to be sure (McGovern's rules committee for one, but that wouldn't matter until '72) but America watched the streets burn in Chicago.

Say RFK doesn't get killed, which is easy. Opinion is divided of course. Theodore H. White (Making of the President, 1968) doesn't like what ifs but says maybe. Jules Witcover (85 Days) says probably. Joe Klein (Politics Lost) says Kennedy would have won at the convention. Plenty of others say no.

So. It would have been pretty nasty I admit but I could see RFK winning. The general, on the other hand, would be a bitch. Could he win? Maybe. Nixon has the edge, to be sure, but RFK has the name and… well, honesty.

That's the thing I take away from reading about RFK. The man got the problems. He understood them, domestically, in a way Nixon never did and whether or not his ideas would have worked he had them. Spoke truthfully about them.

Nixon won in 1968 but it wasn't fordained. Humphrey's campaign sucked and Nixon's was excellent. RFK was on the ground floor of JFK's brilliant 1960 campaign (including primaries) and he would have understood it far better then Humphrey ever did.

Campaigns matter. So I could see RFK beating Nixon. It wouldn't have been easy, certainly, and it would have required a convention that didn't end in fire but it could have happened.

Arthur Schlesinger said:
Richard Harwood of the Washington Post and other newspapermen began to change their minds about the clamorous crowds. Maybe there was something more to it than demagoguery. "We discovered in 1968," Harwood said later, "this deep, almost mystical bond that existed between Robert Kennedy and the Other America. It was a disquieting experience for reporters.... We were forced to recognize in Watts and Gary and Chimney Rock [Nebraska] that the real stake in the American electoral process involved not the fate of speech-writers and fund-raisers but the lives of millions of people seeking hope out of despair."
So. That said I believe RFK could win. It's not the most probable result or anything, Nixon was a disciplined and formidable man who had arguably the best campaign team ever assembled up to that point, but it could be done.

Anyway. Other people's options are here and here and here and elsewhere, I'm sure.

I also have Mitchell Freedman's 30 page essay on Bobby winning the 1968 nomination and the general. If anyone is interested PM me your email and I'm happy to send it along. 50 cents at amazon.com so I couldn't pass it up.

From that essay, as concerns the running mate:

Mitchell J. Freedman (How Bobby Kennedy Wins The 1968 Election) said:
The largely unspoken fear, buried deep inside the consciousness of everyone surrounding Robert Kennedy, was that some nut was “out there” waiting to kill him. This unspoken fear was in the air before June 4, 1968 and was likely to intensify as Kennedy closed in on the nomination and the choice of a vice presidential running mate was being considered. Therefore, one would expect the kingmakers or those with “influence,” such as Mayor Daley, Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers union, and other political insiders, to be adamant that Kennedy not choose a “nobody” governor the way Nixon did with the largely unknown Maryland governor, Spiro T. Agnew.

It was therefore probable that the choice would be a Southern Senator who was not up for re-election in 1968, and was willing to run on a national, presidential and vice presidential “ticket.” This immediately narrowed the field to Senator George Smathers of Florida and Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas. Kennedy might also have considered a Midwestern Senator, such as Indiana’s Senator Vance Hartke, also a close Kennedy friend, with Indiana being a State that “thought South” on racial and other cultural issues. But Harkte was an elitist sort of personality compared to Smathers and Yarborough and would not likely have sufficient “coattails” to help Kennedy win in Indiana, let alone any other State.

There is a strong possibility that many leading Kennedy campaign managers would have counseled Kennedy to concentrate on the West, Mid-west and Northeast—and forget the South altogether. After all, Kennedy’s campaign had largely written off the South during the nomination process through June 4, 1968. However, Kennedy would have been the first to recognize he had to run a national campaign to defeat Nixon and keep Wallace from winning a plurality that would more likely send the nation into a political crisis that would remind people of 1860 more than any other presidential year. Therefore, Kennedy would have wanted to win the Electoral College votes of at least one of the two largest populated Southern States, which were (and remain) Texas and Florida, even if Kennedy failed to receive at least 50% of the popular vote against Nixon and Wallace.

Knowing what we know about Robert Kennedy’s experience in planning a successful political campaign, and with seasoned veteran advisers such as Larry O’Brien, Kenny O’Donnell, Joe Dolan, and Mayor Richard Daley—who each knew the importance of placating union leaders and members—Yarborough becomes the most likely choice by a process of elimination. Yarborough was a prairie liberal, more inclined to a “down-home” tone and phrasing that was beginning to be viewed as “conservative” in both urban and suburban environments. Yarborough was also a fearless and principled person who spoke with genuine feeling to white and black working class people. To understand Ralph Yarborough, who is largely forgotten today, one may think of Vermont’s independent politician, Bernie Sanders, with a Southern accent—but even that analogy may not really explain Yarborough’s appeal at that particular time.

A Kennedy-Yarborough ticket would likely have had a diverse and powerful punch that would put both Wallace and Nixon on the defensive, which would be the best way for Democrats to have won a campaign in an environment where more than half of registered Americans were still voting in national elections, where union voters constituted over 40% of the total national voters, and where farmers in rural mid-western States were very much caught up in Kennedy nostalgia, as Kennedy himself saw in rural Nebraska and Kansas where Kennedy traveled in the spring of 1968.

Does Robert Kennedy win in a “landslide,” meaning with 55% or more of the total “popular” vote? No. If Kennedy wins, which is likely, he wins with just over 50% of the vote. But, that popular vote victory also translates into a solid Electoral College win for Kennedy, based upon the demographic breakdown of States at that time. This would, among the factors, include a Kennedy victory over Nixon in Nixon’s home state of California (Nixon barely won against a lackluster Humphrey effort), and the Kennedy-Yarborough ticket winning Texas.
 
Last edited:
We can continue the scenario of President RFK. Civil rights movements would settle down, the moon landing would succeed, the voting age would lowered, the draft and Vietnam war (hopefully) would wind down no slower than in OTL. The economy would be non-threatening and RFK would win an easy re-election in 1972.

Then the clouds darken for the incumbent party. Fuel shortages and high inflation would set in, and there was not much the government could have done about it. The democrats would have no heir-apparent to the presidency and Ronald Reagan, as he left the California state house in 1975, would become the republican front runner who would ride into the white house in the election of 1976.

Reagan might have traveled to China, breaking the ice in international relations seven years after it was done in OTL. But he still would have been the victim of an economy with inflation out of control. Reaganomics worked in the eighties because the supply-demand situation for petroleum and real estate development entered a long term cycle change (and, these commodities had overinflated under Carter in OTL). Reagan would have been a one-term president; anybody elected in 1976 was destined to be a one-term president.

So, who do the democrats put up in 1980. Certainly not Jimmy Carter. Ed Muskie at 65 would be too old. John Glenn maybe?
 
It's not clear that Kennedy would have even gotten the Democratic nomination for President in 1968, let alone won the election. Assuming he did, he presumably would've ended the Vietnam War like Nixon did. Kennedy would've been reelected in 1972 because of the 6% rule. It seems probable that Reagan would've gotten the Republican nomination for President in 1976, which means a strong possibility he would've been elected President then instead of 1980.
 
I think Reagan would be the 1972 Republican party candidate of 1972. Since he would not have the issues of bad economy and hostage crisis, voters would have had a chance to his unpopular views and his many inconsistencies, so weaknesses as a candidate would have been exposed. The Republicans would have run someone else in 1976, probably someone stronger.
 
It's not clear that Kennedy would have even gotten the Democratic nomination for President in 1968, let alone won the election. Assuming he did, he presumably would've ended the Vietnam War like Nixon did. Kennedy would've been reelected in 1972 because of the 6% rule. It seems probable that Reagan would've gotten the Republican nomination for President in 1976, which means a strong possibility he would've been elected President then instead of 1980.
The "6% rule"? :confused:
 
The "6% rule"? :confused:

Don't worry about it, AMBOMB is fixated on weird "rules" in US politics.


One thing to keep in mind is urban & race issues. RFK got those, and whether or not he would have been effective in dealing with them he would have tried.

Presumably RFK would have tried to get South Vietnam to take over in 1969, instead of several years later. This may or may not have worked, but it raises intriguing policies for a democratic, though socialist/commie, South Vietnam not allied with North Vietnam.

Economics wise winding down Viet Nam and changing/ending the Great Society probably gives a lot of room to maneuverer on both taxes and new program spending. Probably tax raises in the near-future, with potential tax cuts in the second term once Viet Nam is out of the way.

The draft will likely become National Service, with your choice of things to do.

China stays frosty, though that means the USA will not be betraying the Republic of China (Taiwan) at the UN as in OTL.

RFK beats Reagan in 1976? Howard Baker or Robert Dole wins in 1980 against RFK's VP?
 
While it is not unlikely that Kennedy would fail to get the presidential nomination, if he ran, I can see him going far. Probably, Reagan is a strong challenger, but comes up short. If nixon took 60% of the vote in 1972, I see Kennedy taking between 55and ^% against Reagan. Then, Kennedy is barred from further elections, and his veep steps up. After that, the 1976 election depends on the vice-president, and who goes up for the Republicans (Baker or Dole, with Bush as an outside candidate).
 
Y'know, no one seems to think of the idea of Kennedy losing the Democratic nomination in 1968 to Humphrey (who is beaten by Nixon) but winning the nomination in 1972 and getting his first presidential term in that election. It seems to always be 1968 or nothing.
 
Y'know, no one seems to think of the idea of Kennedy losing the Democratic nomination in 1968 to Humphrey (who is beaten by Nixon) but winning the nomination in 1972 and getting his first presidential term in that election. It seems to always be 1968 or nothing.

There's a number of reasons for that, actually.

1968 was what some people would argue as the turning point. The last real chance America's cities and America's poor and America's black people had, a chance to be noticed and a chance to have a better future.

By 1972 Viet Nam was obvious to all and people were ok with Nixon's course. Cities had been roundly ignored and had entered a several decade long decline. Black people and the hollowing out of urban schools had set that course.

Can Kennedy win in 1972? Sure, but it would be meaningless.
 
Don't worry about it, AMBOMB is fixated on weird "rules" in US politics.


One thing to keep in mind is urban & race issues. RFK got those, and whether or not he would have been effective in dealing with them he would have tried.

Presumably RFK would have tried to get South Vietnam to take over in 1969, instead of several years later. This may or may not have worked, but it raises intriguing policies for a democratic, though socialist/commie, South Vietnam not allied with North Vietnam.

Economics wise winding down Viet Nam and changing/ending the Great Society probably gives a lot of room to maneuverer on both taxes and new program spending. Probably tax raises in the near-future, with potential tax cuts in the second term once Viet Nam is out of the way.

The draft will likely become National Service, with your choice of things to do.

China stays frosty, though that means the USA will not be betraying the Republic of China (Taiwan) at the UN as in OTL.

RFK beats Reagan in 1976? Howard Baker or Robert Dole wins in 1980 against RFK's VP?

No way South Vietnam was remaining independent. The South Vietnamese just didn't have the North Vietnamese's will to fight.
 
No way South Vietnam was remaining independent. The South Vietnamese just didn't have the North Vietnamese's will to fight.

I'm saying they hold free elections, the commies win (of course), and then the government realizes how batshit crazy the North Vietnamese government is and decide to remain independent. Whether or not they ever hold another election is unknown, but North Vietnam has a much harder sell invading a peaceful friendly commie sister state with no Americans left.

It's not likely, certainly, but it would be an interesting outcome.

The probability, obviously, is that Viet Nam is united under North Vietnamese control. But an alternate history would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Top