Rockefeller/Reagan in 1968?

Apparently, the rumors of such a team were significant enough to warrant a TIME cover. Thinking about it, the East Coast Liberal and West Coast Conservative ticket unites the GOP both ideologically and geographically. The easiest POD I can see is Nixon not running in 1968 and Romney suffering his OTL collapse, leading to a Rockefeller victory, but having to appease the conservatives with Reagan. Could this ticket win? If so, how would Rockefeller's presidency go?
 
The big difference between Rockefeller and Nixon is no Southern strategy. tThe Justice Department would be enforcing school integration. rRicky might alienate conservatives and Reagan might challenge him in the 72 primaries.
 
This would be a marriage made in Hell. The Conservatives and Liberals did not get along at all, and you're taking the leaders and merging them into a ticket. Not just Rockefeller and some Conservative or Reagan and some Liberal, but the leaders of the movements. And the Conservatives hated Rockefeller. He embodied the Eastern establishment. And Reagan had yet to cool his politics, so he was still a fire-breathing convert who was extremely Conservative (he called JFK a Communist). This will not at all go well, if Reagan even were to accept second place to Nelson Rockefeller.
 
Rockefeller would not be able to win the South, not even with Reagan on the ticket - simply because he was Rockefeller. In 1968, Wallace may do even better than in OTL - getting OTL Nixon votes, though Humphrey may lose enough liberal vote to Rockefeller to balance it off. I don't really think Reagan would accept it though. He has just been governor for 2 years. And if he would like to be a future contender for the presidency, it's better for him to stay in California than to go to Washington DC. Due to his fundamental differences with Reagan, Reagan would not be able to achieve anything - unless he would like to become a thorn in the Rockefeller administration. No matter what, after wasting 4 or 8 years in the White House without anything to do, he may not really be a serious contender in 1976, and he surely won't get Rockefeller's blessing. However, it's worth noticing that given the stress of being President, Rockefeller may well have died of a heart attack say in his second term, leaving the presidency to Reagan:p And then, you have an earlier Reagan presidency that at least lasts until 1981. Anyway, like what I said at first, I really don't see Reagan accepting the VP slot. No.
 
Well, Time magazine isn't really what I'd call a bastion of concrete journalism, but it is an interesting idea.

The first challenge is getting Rockefeller the nomination in a party where every position is pretty well held by a conservative. If he manages to do that, I don't think it would be either man's choice to set up such a ticket. Maybe if Rocky's people lose control of the convention floor and the convention nominates and selects Reagan as the VP candidate before he can get there to stop it this could happen. Otherwise no way.

Wallace would, I agree, do much better. Wallace's statement that there "ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the two candidates would be even truer if the candidates were Humphrey and Rockefeller. Reagan's presence would do enough to alleviate southerners' fears about Rockefeller. I'd imagine this would be the recipe for a disaster of "Dewey-losing-to-Truman" proportions for the Republicans when either HHH carries the day or the election is thrown to the House because of an Electoral College deadlock.
 
Top