Rocky stays with his first wife

Theodore White said in The Making of the President 1964, that if issue of Nelson Rockefeller's divorce had not come up the write in campaign for Henry Cabot Lodge would not have happened. He thought that Rockefeller would have won New Hampshire and then would gone on to win the nomination. I think he underestimated the power of the Goldwater movement. Out of respect for the late Theodore White and because it is an interesting question I would ask what would have happened if Nelson Rockefeller won the 1964 Republican nomination for President ? First I think that George Wallace would have run as a third party candidate. He won have hurt Johnson by winning Southern Democrats but also hurt Rockefeller by winning Goldwater conservatives. I think LBJ wins by a narrower margin. The popular would have been Johnson 44% Rockefeller 41% Wallace 14%.Johnson would have won Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, DC, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky. Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Hawaii, California, Nevada, New Mexico. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri for 310 electoral votes. Wallace wins the OTL Goldwater Southern states: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,, Georgia and South Carolina for 47. Rockefeller wins everywhere else for 181 electoral votes. The future, however is murky. Goldwater might have been able to run for reelection to the Senate and continue as leader of the conservative movement. Vietnam, the urban riots and the rising crime rate would have increased his support. He could have won the 1968 nomination. Then Humphrey wins by a landslide. I could also see Richard Nixon cutting into the conservative vote and winning the nomination and things proceeding as they did OTL. I think this TL delays the political career of Ronald Reagan. I don't see him having enough enthusiasm for Nelson Rockefeller to make a nationally televised speech. I see him holding his nose and voting for Rockefeller. In 1968, he could easily have made his speech for Goldwater or Nixon and become a star in California Republican politics as he did OTL four years earlier. In 1970. there would still be a Republican incumbent Senator. The governor's office is possible if Pat Brown was reelected against another Republican in 1966. If Humphrey is president 1970 could be a good Republican year and Reagan could be elected California governor. Although the issues would be different than 1966 though. If Humphrey is president 1974, with the bad economy, inflation and the energy crisis would be a very good Republican year and Reagan could easily win reelection. He then could be the Republican nominee in 1976. If he is is elected. I don't see 1980 being different ITTL. so he would lose badly. Of course. Reagan's career depends on the unknowns of the who is elected President in 1968 and California Governor in 1966. If there was a vacancy in a Los Angeles area strong Republican House seat in 1970,with his national prominence he could be considered a presidential candidate by 1976.
 
Last edited:

Japhy

Banned
Rockefeller simply had money to throw. It was a badly managed campaign on his part that was pretty much a repeat of his attempt in 1960 and he was out of step with the party.

Goldwater on the other hand didn't come out of the either. As Perlstein notes, the nomination in 1964 was the culmination of a complex, well coordinated and funded effort with lots of grassroots support.

So Rockefeller could not have won the nomination by any effort.

That said it's inevitable that Goldwater would have run for the Senate again had he lost the nomination, and it's inevitable that Wallace would have run for a third party, as he promised too, since without a Goldwater triumph the GOP platform will be Pro-Integration.

In 1968 Goldwater has a much better chance of being the Conservative Challenger to the presumptive Nixon nomination as Nixon will spend 1964 attempting to gain chits, which will be easier without his effort to offer himself up as an ABG canidate.

In the end though the whole thing is flawed because in 1964, Rockefeller cannot win.
 
As an aside, Geoffrey Kabaservice posits in "Rule and Ruin" (a history of moderate Republicans since Ike) that Rockefeller was a net negative for the progressive/moderate wing of the GOP. He kept running for President in fits and starts, and spending an awful lot of money in the process. This did two things: One, it discouraged and detracted from other moderates (like Bill Scranton and George Romney) who may have been stronger candidates, and two, the money he spent could have gone to moderate candidates in statewide and congressional races where it really could have made a bigger difference.

I know this isn't what the tin asked, but it seems relevant to the conversation.
 
Plus, Rockefeller's marriage to his first wife had been over in all but name for years before their divorce.

Now, if he divorces her in the late 1950s, before his first run for governor, things get...interesting.
 
Top