First off, I admire Humphrey and I'm happy to see timelines about it. But oh man, stay away from the minefield of noting who gets every Cabinet position.
Lawrence O'Brien wouldn't get Treasury.
Harris was happy in the Senate. Interior matters for Western states. Oklahoma might not be West enough for a Senator to go for Interior. You'd want a purely Western politician.
Udall was happy in Congress, I doubt Agriculture would get him on board. Also, Agriculture isn't huge for Arizona. He might take Interior, though.
No way in hell. Rockefeller was Governor of New York! In 1968 that's one of the half dozen or so most powerful elected positions in the country. Not to mention that he might be a liberal Republican, but he was a Republican.
Maybe for a year or two, but not for long. Clement liked being Governor.
One bad thing that will result from this is no McGovern-Fraser Commission meaning people don't actually really pick their party's candidates...
Although I think Nixon's flaws overshadow the fact his 1st term was pretty good, I would be intrigued to see where this goes.
I hope it follows the pattern of some of the better TL's where good and bad happens rather than the "<insert party here> never makes a mistake and <insert party here> is evil" pattern some have taken
Udall cared a great deal for agriculture and he has eyes on a future Senate run. Harris was going to be in the cabinet somewhere, and that seemed a fit for him.
Humphrey's cabinet was going to include Republicans.
Treasury was actually a terribly hard choice for me to make. O'Brien managed Humphrey's campaign and stretched out the funds about as well as anyone could have. It seemed like a fit to me, but perhaps I'm incorrect in that assumption.
I never heard Udall wanted a cabinet seat. Staying in Congress is a better set-up than cabinet for Senate.
Fred Harris might be in cabinet, but he'd need something better.
Sure. I don't disagree. Nelson Rockefeller is one of the least likely Republicans in the country though. (I'd say Goldwater and Nixon would be less likely, but Nixon is actually a reasonable choice for Ambassador to the USSR or China.)
O'Brien was a campaigner. He only got Postmaster General because he wanted a break (IIRC).
David M. Kennedy from OTL seems reasonable. Both LBJ & Nixon liked him. John Connally is even better, if only so Humphrey can help out Ralph Yarborough in Texas.
ETA: you know you can compose quote replies to multiple people in the same post, right? Either multi-quote or just copy/paste the responses into one post. It makes it easier to follow, if you don't drop three posts in a row. (And, if you want to link your timeline, highlight the text and then click on the URL button. So This is an example, the click will lead you to EXAMPLE.com)
drcynic said:Here's how I believe the House would have voted. The House chooses between the top two candidates, thus, Wallace would not be considered
Udall probably would have stayed in Congress if he hadn't been asked. It wouldn't necessarily set up a Senate run, but since he's still a relatively young man and has quite a bit of time ahead of him. So it couldn't hurt to give him a job in an area he's passionate about.
I actually wanted originally to give Harris the Labor department. Maybe switch him for that?
Possibly correct about O'Brien, but again, it's hard to turn the President down (I considered David Kennedy and he'd probably be in the next cabinet)
Rockefeller accepts to spite the Republican Party, but will eventually get sick of the job? Or I can just replace him with the backup McGeorge Bundy.
Here's how I believe the House would have voted. The House chooses between the top two candidates, thus, Wallace would not be considered.