So if JFK lives, does George Wallace still run in 68?

Does he? Every timeline i've looked at makes it seem like the Republicans would turn to the Southern strategy early. However, even with the southern strategy used by Nixon, Wallace still ran and won a few deep southern states. Does this still happen if Kennedy lives and we have a race between say Nixon and a Hubert Humphrey-Terry Sanford ticket?
 
If Kennedy lives, you get a much much weaker Civil Rights Act. Which means a much more muted Southern Strategy and Dixiecrat revolt.
 
If Kennedy lives, you get a much much weaker Civil Rights Act.

In 1964, quite probably. But JFK is going to defeat Goldwater quite decisively [1], and there is no reason to think he can't get stronger civil rights legislation through the 89th Congress, which will be more liberal than the 88th.

BTW, even if (which I think very unlikely) JFK can't or won't get strong anti-discrimination legislation through Congress in 1965, there is always the Supreme Court to declare that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 *already* did the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Mayer

[1] See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/YH16cCyQ3kM/ho3UZyccBlEJ for evidence that JFK's approval ratings, though inevitably down from their post-Cuban Missile Crisis stratospheric heights, were still *very* satisfactory in the months preceding his assassination.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Depends how much JFK alienates the Southern Democrats in the '64 campaign, as well as how far reaching his Civil Rights Act is.

In '68, for all we know, a Southern Democrat wins the nomination campaigning on Law and Order, which was popular with both parties around the country. If this happens, there likely is no challenge from Wallace. Maybe it would be Wallace who wins the nomination if the Northern Democrats cannot get their shit together.
 
In 1964, quite probably. But JFK is going to defeat Goldwater quite decisively [1], and there is no reason to think he can't get stronger civil rights legislation through the 89th Congress, which will be more liberal than the 88th.

If a Civil Rights Act hasn't come up for a vote in 1964, Goldwater hasn't voted against it; he may have stronger support from moderates in the 1964 election.

Also, no JFK assassination means Jack Valenti isn't handling the media campaign ; no "Daisy" ad, and probably fewer, less-effective attack ads overall.

JFK will of course still win, but it may not be the blowout of OTL 1964 ; Goldwater probably does better for the above reasons, and Wallace does better because his crowd hates a Yankee worse than a Texan.
 
Last edited:
Wallace would certainly run in 1968. He ran in 1964 for the nomination in a failed bid that seems only to have been to set himself up for the future. If nothing else, he wanted political glory and the presidency was the pinnacle of that. Wallace would have run in 1964 as a third party until Goldwater received the nomination. Put Rockefeller or anyone else in the nomination, and you'd have Wallace as an independent running against both the Republicans and Northern Democrats. If he cannot win the nomination in 1968 - and he would not have, Stephen King silliness be damned - he would run as a third party. He would use this to set himself up for the future, and to make himself politically influential. And then he'd try for the Democratic nomination in 1972.

If Kennedy lives, you get a much much weaker Civil Rights Act. Which means a much more muted Southern Strategy and Dixiecrat revolt.

The great man of Lyndon Johnson is overstated. It's true in many regards, but it ignores context and the force of history. Such things as the Civil Rights Act were stalled even when LBJ assumed office and initially tried to pass it. It took that influx of Liberals in the 1964 election to make a changed Congress where the new people were for the "ideas whose time had come" and the older generation recognized they couldn't stand in it's way anymore so enough got on board or got out of the way to make the difference. Hence, when the conservatives made a comeback circa 1966 and onward, LBJ started to get more and more stalled. Johnson said that himself when confronted about it. He got things done with a friendly Congress, and couldn't progress any more with an oppositional, blocking Congress. That's the story of legislation in the 1960s: not the lone great men, but the Congress and the social forces at work. You're getting a Civil Rights act, and not a half hearted, weak bill either.
 
He got things done with a friendly Congress, and couldn't progress any more with an oppositional, blocking Congress. That's the story of legislation in the 1960s

I sat here for 15 minutes trying to think of different Obama/111th Congress jokes.

Anyway, I tend to be cynical when it comes to race in Murica nowdays so I find it impossible to believe that JFK would've fought -as hard- as LBJ did. Its easy to talk about the inevitable march of history in hindsight (and its a cliche around here; Nazis never had a chance!), but the segregationists were dug in. Just like its easy to imagine the Soviet Union having a messier breakup, I always thought it would be very easy to imagine an America where major elements of classic Jim Crow last well into the 70s. Not "A World of Laughter, A World of Tears" bad but.....bad enough to look crapsack compared to OTL.
 
The great man of Lyndon Johnson is overstated. It's true in many regards, but it ignores context and the force of history. Such things as the Civil Rights Act were stalled even when LBJ assumed office and initially tried to pass it. It took that influx of Liberals in the 1964 election to make a changed Congress where the new people were for the "ideas whose time had come" and the older generation recognized they couldn't stand in it's way anymore so enough got on board or got out of the way to make the difference. Hence, when the conservatives made a comeback circa 1966 and onward, LBJ started to get more and more stalled. Johnson said that himself when confronted about it. He got things done with a friendly Congress, and couldn't progress any more with an oppositional, blocking Congress. That's the story of legislation in the 1960s: not the lone great men, but the Congress and the social forces at work. You're getting a Civil Rights act, and not a half hearted, weak bill either.

The Civil Rights Act would not have had the teeth it had or gotten passed in the form it did with Johnson's parliamentary skills; he sped things up by several years, if not a decade.
 
The great man of Lyndon Johnson is overstated. It's true in many regards, but it ignores context and the force of history. Such things as the Civil Rights Act were stalled even when LBJ assumed office and initially tried to pass it. It took that influx of Liberals in the 1964 election to make a changed Congress where the new people were for the "ideas whose time had come" and the older generation recognized they couldn't stand in it's way anymore so enough got on board or got out of the way to make the difference. Hence, when the conservatives made a comeback circa 1966 and onward, LBJ started to get more and more stalled. Johnson said that himself when confronted about it. He got things done with a friendly Congress, and couldn't progress any more with an oppositional, blocking Congress. That's the story of legislation in the 1960s: not the lone great men, but the Congress and the social forces at work. You're getting a Civil Rights act, and not a half hearted, weak bill either.

1. A Kennedy victory over Goldwater would have likely been narrower than Johnson's in OTL. This means less extensive coat-tails. Which means a more conservative Congress. Which means a more muted Civil Rights Act.

2. The structure of Congress, with the filibuster and the gang of Southern Senators, made it inherently hard to get Civil Rights through. You needed someone of Johnson's parliamentary ability (which was far greater than Kennedy's, or indeed any US President of the twentieth century) to overcome those in-built obstacles.

In short, how would a sick Kennedy, without a massive Congressional majority, and without vast experience in the Senate, get through a Bill with teeth?
 
1. A Kennedy victory over Goldwater would have likely been narrower than Johnson's in OTL. This means less extensive coat-tails. Which means a more conservative Congress. Which means a more muted Civil Rights Act.

2. The structure of Congress, with the filibuster and the gang of Southern Senators, made it inherently hard to get Civil Rights through. You needed someone of Johnson's parliamentary ability (which was far greater than Kennedy's, or indeed any US President of the twentieth century) to overcome those in-built obstacles.

In short, how would a sick Kennedy, without a massive Congressional majority, and without vast experience in the Senate, get through a Bill with teeth?

Okay this explains it. But my question is what about Wallace's vainglory? I mean lets say in 68 we have Nixon vs. Humphrey or Terry Sanford or Scoop Jackson or who knows who. Even if it is a muted civil rights bill, isn't it enough to enrage him and his supporters? He might only win Alabama and Mississippi, but still? I mean the Dixiecrats ran against Truman simply because he desegregated the Army. I'd think he'd at least be the person railing against it.
 
On the subject of whether JFK's victory in 1964 would have been that much narrower than LBJ's, I would again remind you that the last Gallup poll before JFK's death showed him leading Goldwater by sixteen points. https://plus.google.com/u/0/1177130...5951181922493340962&oid=117713002461778944960 That's less than LBJ's eventual 22.6 point victory, but not *that* much. And his job approval rating was 59 percent approval to 28 percent disapproval and 13 percent "don't know." https://plus.google.com/u/0/1177130...5951205596462499538&oid=117713002461778944960 What would Obama in mid-November 2011 or George W. Bush in mid-November 2003 http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx have given for ratings like that?...

You may say, well, JFK's lead might decline in the year following the poll. It might--but why would it? The economy would if anything get better, there would be no serious escalation in Vietnam yet, and as for civil rights, it probably had *already* caused JFK most of the damage by November 1963 (with Goldwater leading in the South by 55-45--the only region where he was ahead) that it ever would. Meanwhile, there is an obvious reason to think the gap with Goldwater would if anything increase--namely the fact that Goldwater was a terrible campaigner, who made swing voters more, not less nervous about him the more he spoke...
 
Also, no JFK assassination means Jack Valenti isn't handling the media campaign ; no "Daisy" ad, and probably fewer, less-effective attack ads overall.

LBJ had a huge lead over Goldwater in the polls *before* the Daisy ad. [1] It wasn't that ad that made people fear Goldwater--it was the things he himself had said.

[1] Just one example chosen at random: The Daisy ad aired on September 7. "In a statewide survey just completed, the California Poll interviewed a representative cross section of 1209 potential voters *during the first week of September.* [my emphasis--DT] Johnson is favored by 62%, Goldwater by 33%, and just 5% are undecided." http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/pubs/CalPolls/444.pdf
 
An amusing thought that occurred to me: If in 1964, LBJ got a partial nuclear test ban treaty through the Senate by an 80-19 vote, lots of people would say that JFK would never have been able to do so! :p
 
On the subject of whether JFK's victory in 1964 would have been that much narrower than LBJ's, I would again remind you that the last Gallup poll before JFK's death showed him leading Goldwater by sixteen points. https://plus.google.com/u/0/1177130...5951181922493340962&oid=117713002461778944960 That's less than LBJ's eventual 22.6 point victory, but not *that* much. And his job approval rating was 59 percent approval to 28 percent disapproval and 13 percent "don't know." https://plus.google.com/u/0/1177130...5951205596462499538&oid=117713002461778944960 What would Obama in mid-November 2011 or George W. Bush in mid-November 2003 http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx have given for ratings like that?...

You may say, well, JFK's lead might decline in the year following the poll. It might--but why would it? The economy would if anything get better, there would be no serious escalation in Vietnam yet, and as for civil rights, it probably had *already* caused JFK most of the damage by November 1963 (with Goldwater leading in the South by 55-45--the only region where he was ahead) that it ever would. Meanwhile, there is an obvious reason to think the gap with Goldwater would if anything increase--namely the fact that Goldwater was a terrible campaigner, who made swing voters more, not less nervous about him the more he spoke...

I think this is pretty much what happens in 64 except that other than the OTL states he wins, Goldwater also takes Florida, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska for sure, and might be more of a player in some southern states.
 
The Civil Rights Act would not have had the teeth it had or gotten passed in the form it did with Johnson's parliamentary skills; he sped things up by several years, if not a decade.

There was enormous momentum for the CRA in both houses of Congress and in particular in the Senate even before JFK's death. There was also a huge public upsurge of interest and support, especially in the aftermath of high-profile incidents of disobedience and violence in the south and the March on Washington.

LBJ's role in the CRA is overstated. Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, and figures like Hubert Humphrey all played an enormous role. Even if you posit that it wouldn't have passed till after 1964 without JFK's death, remember that the election results would still have returned an even larger Democratic majority (even if it was short of OTL's post-1964 numbers).

What is possible is that other post-CRA bills like the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act etc don't pass or are watered down. Though as David T points out, the Supreme Court will likely push some of these issues itself, and Kennedy's DOJ might itself aggressively push action through executive and administrative moves.
 
There was enormous momentum for the CRA in both houses of Congress and in particular in the Senate even before JFK's death. There was also a huge public upsurge of interest and support, especially in the aftermath of high-profile incidents of disobedience and violence in the south and the March on Washington.

LBJ's role in the CRA is overstated. Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, and figures like Hubert Humphrey all played an enormous role. Even if you posit that it wouldn't have passed till after 1964 without JFK's death, remember that the election results would still have returned an even larger Democratic majority (even if it was short of OTL's post-1964 numbers).

What is possible is that other post-CRA bills like the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act etc don't pass or are watered down. Though as David T points out, the Supreme Court will likely push some of these issues itself, and Kennedy's DOJ might itself aggressively push action through executive and administrative moves.

You are just wrong here, completely and utterly wrong, there was support for the CRA already, yes, but Kennedy's version of the bill had gotten tied up in the committee by Southern Democratic Congressmen, Kennedy did not have the same parliamentary skill as Johnson; and would not have been able to dislodge the bill out of committee.

Even if Kennedy had gotten a bill passed, it would not have had the same teeth that the original bill in OTL did.
 
Top