Rockefeller Derails Goldwater

In the Goldwater chapter of Almost President: The Men Who Lost The Race But Changed The Nation, the book states Rockefeller could have prevented Goldwater from getting the GOP nomination but his wife, who he married soon after she divorced a prior husband, gave birth to their child around the time of the California primary and that dredged the scandal up again.

Despite this, Rockefeller had a good showing in California but still lost.

So what if the conception of Rockefeller's baby had gone somewhat differently and either the kid isn't there or is born earlier or later? The book states Rockefeller winning California could "derail" Goldwater, but doesn't go into detail how.
 

Jeremy Lin

Banned
IMO LBJ still wins in 64' he was more hawkish no national defense and the military than Rockefeller and his domestic agenda was quite popular at the time.
 
IMO LBJ still wins in 64' he was more hawkish no national defense and the military than Rockefeller and his domestic agenda was quite popular at the time.

That's what the book says too--a Democratic victory was inevitable due to Kennedy's death.

However, a late-game failure of Goldwater will have long-term effects on the conservative movement and the GOP.
 
If Rockefeller wins the WTA contest in California then he gets the nomination. It will be closer than OTL's contest but still a Democratic blowout. The economy is roaring and tensions with the Soviets are fairly low.

Down the line, Goldwater might be preserved for a later election and Rockefeller might not run in '68 if he gets crushed in the GE. Makes things a bit easier for Nixon assuming everything else proceeds as per OTL.
 

bguy

Donor
If Rockefeller wins the WTA contest in California then he gets the nomination. It will be closer than OTL's contest but still a Democratic blowout. The economy is roaring and tensions with the Soviets are fairly low.

I agree that a Goldwater loss in California probably cost him the nomination. (Supposedly William F. Buckley had an editorial ready to run in National Review advising Goldwater to drop out if he lost California.) That said I'm not sure a California win means Rocky wins the nomination. Even with California, Rockefeller is way behind in delegates. Goldwater has pretty much already secured most of the delegates in the south and west by the time of the California primary, and it is doubtful that a California loss will cost him those delegates, so I'm not sure it is even mathematically possible for Rockefeller to get a majority without Goldwater's support.

I would expect the result of Rocky winning California to be a brokered GOP convention that ends up nominating William Scranton as a compromise candidate. As "a liberal on civil rights, a conservative on fiscal policy and an internationalist on foreign affairs”, Scranton has appeal to both wings of the party, and Goldwater liked Scranton personally (they had previously served together in the same Air Force Reserve unit), so Goldwater would be much more willing to support Scranton than Rockefeller.

I agree though that no matter who the Republicans nominate, Johnson cruises to an easy victory. Also if the GOP nominee is Rockefeller or Scranton do we see George Wallace run as a third party candidate in 1964?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Rocky was almost assured the nod in '64. Then he somehow got it into his head that personal issues aren't enough to undo political ambition. Go figure.
 
Rocky loses in a landslide. Ronald Reagan does not run for office. Goldwater may run in '68 or '72 (if Humphrey wins '68, which is more likely without Nixon taking cues from Goldwater's performance in the South).
 
I agree though that no matter who the Republicans nominate, Johnson cruises to an easy victory. Also if the GOP nominee is Rockefeller or Scranton do we see George Wallace run as a third party candidate in 1964?

Probably just a lot of unpledged electors, ala 1960.

Also, isn't this the same kind of scenario that's often used to give Goldwater the candidacy (and the Presidency) in 1968 in?
 
If Rockefeller wins the WTA contest in California then he gets the nomination. It will be closer than OTL's contest but still a Democratic blowout. The economy is roaring and tensions with the Soviets are fairly low.

Down the line, Goldwater might be preserved for a later election and Rockefeller might not run in '68 if he gets crushed in the GE. Makes things a bit easier for Nixon assuming everything else proceeds as per OTL.



If Rockefeller wins the WTA contest in California then he gets the nomination. It will be closer than OTL's contest but still a Democratic blowout. The economy is roaring and tensions with the Soviets are fairly low.

Down the line, Goldwater might be preserved for a later election and Rockefeller might not run in '68 if he gets crushed in the GE. Makes things a bit easier for Nixon assuming everything else proceeds as per OTL.

Would Goldwater contest 1968? If he does and Nixon denies him the nomination for the second the time, would he ever be a viable potential nominee after that. That is, if Rocky 64 doesn't mean Goldwater 68', and with the exception of no Rockefeller campaign in 1968, history goes along its historical path, which election, precisely, would Goldwater be saved for. Are you suggesting a Goldwater nomination in 1976?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Would Goldwater contest 1968? If he does and Nixon denies him the nomination for the second the time, would he ever be a viable potential nominee after that. That is, if Rocky 64 doesn't mean Goldwater 68', and with the exception of no Rockefeller campaign in 1968, history goes along its historical path, which election, precisely, would Goldwater be saved for.
I don't think he'd get a shot at the White House, then. He only really got the '64 nod because Rocky imploded and most Republicans knew that they weren't gonna beat Johnson, so why not give it to Barry and get it out of everybody's system?

So Rocky in '64 likely means Nixon in '68 and Goldwater becoming the elder statesman of the Republican right--which will probably give it a more libertarian bent.
 
I don't think he'd get a shot at the White House, then. He only really got the '64 nod because Rocky imploded and most Republicans knew that they weren't gonna beat Johnson, so why not give it to Barry and get it out of everybody's system?

So Rocky in '64 likely means Nixon in '68 and Goldwater becoming the elder statesman of the Republican right--which will probably give it a more libertarian bent.

Mmm, yeah, that's more likely.
 
I've recently read Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm about what led to Goldwater becoming the first national candidate from conservative wing of GOP and it was pretty enlightening on what happened.

Basically months before California, Goldwater already had enough delgates to get the nomination thanks to political operatives who wanted him to run going into each state at least a year in advance and taking control of the GOP on the local level to capture the state's delgates. Basically when the "Establishment" enter the state nominating conventions those in attendence were all for Goldwater because the system the "Establishment" had created had been used against them. The problem for the Goldwater camp when it came to California was that during the primary season he hadn't exactly been winning like a front-runner should have and everyone in Goldwater's campaign knew he needed to win because the convention couldn't nominate a perceived loser and stand a chance.

After the '64 convention, Goldwater's "Arizona Mafia" dismissed all the political operatives' plans and organization. Basically the campaign was a disaster because nothing was coordinated from the national level to the state or local level, the campaign would say one thing and the candidate would make a speech about something completely different. The reason Ronald Reagan got noticed was because campaigners for Goldwater in California essentially went, in today's term, "rogue" along with another states and organizations who supported the Goldwater campaign. Basically if Johnson didn't steamroll Goldwater it would have been his own fault.

If Rockeller had won California, he wouldn't have been the nominee but neither would Goldwater. I agree that Scranton probably would have gotten the nomination, but the enthusiasm the conservatives had leaving the convention wouldn't have existed and they wouldn't have been willing to do anything for Scranton.

The coordination between the national and state levels would have been better, but there wouldn't have been any people wanting to campaign for Scranton like there was for Goldwater. It might have resulted in Wallace entering the race and probably winning a few of the southern states that Goldwater did in OTL. But Johnson wanted to legitimize his entire political career with a victory in 1964 and facing an essentially divided GOP, he win handily.

What happens afterwards in this scenario? Reagan wouldn't have been seen in the last national broadcast by the GOP and thus doesn't run for office in 1966 and eventually become myth that today's conservative candidates try legitimize themselves. Nixon would have campaigned for Scranton like he did for Goldwater in OTL to be seen as a good GOP soldier and would campaign for congressional and gubernatial candidates in '66 like OTL, and he would have learned how the operatives for Goldwater had acquired all those delgates and used that system to get the nomination in '68 as per OTL. Goldwater would win re-election for Senate in '64, instead of concentrating on the Presidential campaign and not running for the Senate, and become an elder statesman of the party for the conservative wing that would be pissed off that their man was once again denied at the convention (Taft in '52).

And a remote possibility that the conservatives breakaway from the GOP to form their own party some time between '64 and today exists depending on when/if Reagon enters politics.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
What would the election issues even be then? I mean 64 would be a booming economy with both parties having nominated a liberal. It would be like 1924 in reverse and be remembered as the height of American liberalism. Wallace would probably run in the south or it would go unpleged.
 
It would have been Johnson defeating Scranton and Wallace. Goldwater would have run for reelection to the Senate.He remains the leader of the conservative movement. Instead of being out of office from 1965 to 1969 as he was OTL,he is in the Senate opposing Great Society and civil rights legislation.
 
Last edited:
What would the election issues even be then? I mean 64 would be a booming economy with both parties having nominated a liberal. It would be like 1924 in reverse and be remembered as the height of American liberalism. Wallace would probably run in the south or it would go unpleged.

Who said it would be exciting? 1960 had both parties nominate a moderate. Same with 1976, 1992...
 
Oh, and the chances of LBJ tapping RFK as Veep go from about 1% to 5% because the Northeast becomes more competitive. Still vanishingly unlikely, almost ASB.
 

bguy

Donor
It would have been Johnson defeating Scranton and Wallace. Goldwater would have run for reelection to the Senate.He remains the leader of the conservative movement. Instead of being out of office from 1965 to 1969 as he was OTL,he is in the Senate opposing Great Society and civil rights legislation.

Could Goldwater actually run for reelection though? According to ourcampaigns.com the filing deadline for the Senate race was June 1, 1964 which just happens to be the day before the California primary.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=3281

So unless Barry decides to pull the plug on his presidential campaign before California votes, it looks like he will be benched for the next 4 years anyway.

(Though if Goldwater was in the Senate from 1965 to 1969 I believe he would have supported the Voting Rights Act. Goldwater's book Conscience of the Conservative specifically listed votings rights as an approrpiate area for federal action, and since there is clear constitutional authority for federal action in that area under the 15th Amendment Goldwater wouldn't have the constitutional concerns that led to his vote against the Civil Rights Act.)
 
I presume that there would be some kind separate candidate from the Dixiecrats, in otl Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act made him the candiate of the Southern extremists, they would surely have run someone
 

JoeMulk

Banned
How I see it going down
genusmap.php

Johnson/Humphrey 310
Rockefeller/Rhodes 181
Wallace/Barnett 47
 
Top