As the title says, was there a way for Nixon not to initiate the Southern Strategy?
Specifically, could he have won in 1968 without using that plan?
Specifically, could he have won in 1968 without using that plan?
Was There A Way For Nixon Not to Initiate the Southern Strategy
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
Towelie
Banned
The Southern Strategy is one of those oft repeated explanations but it seems as if it was a bit less comprehensive than first thought. It wasn't really until 2000 when you can say the Republicans controlled the South.
But for Nixon, there isn't a way for him to win without being seen as the candidate for law and order, and that meant brushing up against Wallace, who was doing better in northern suburbs than people liked to admit. HHH had a disastrous convention, but by and large, he got labor to rally around him and by and large, he carried the vote of the New Left, however begrudgingly. The Republicans keep in mind were 4 years off of a landslide. Nixon would have likely lost some of those southern states he won if not for Wallace. Its possible that if he was a bit less culturally divisive, he had a chance in Maine, Connecticut, and Washington. But really, no Wallace meant that he could in my view cruise to victory. It would be '72 4 years earlier, an up or down vote on the cultural changes and unrest going on, and Nixon would win that decisively. A lot of Humphrey voters were reluctant voters, and without Wallace, they would be comfortable casting a ballot for Nixon.
As for no southern strategy period, have Wallace win the Democratic Primary (for, um, reasons) or some other Southern Democrat with conservative views on culture. Nixon will simply repeat traditional Republican victories of the 20th century.
But for Nixon, there isn't a way for him to win without being seen as the candidate for law and order, and that meant brushing up against Wallace, who was doing better in northern suburbs than people liked to admit. HHH had a disastrous convention, but by and large, he got labor to rally around him and by and large, he carried the vote of the New Left, however begrudgingly. The Republicans keep in mind were 4 years off of a landslide. Nixon would have likely lost some of those southern states he won if not for Wallace. Its possible that if he was a bit less culturally divisive, he had a chance in Maine, Connecticut, and Washington. But really, no Wallace meant that he could in my view cruise to victory. It would be '72 4 years earlier, an up or down vote on the cultural changes and unrest going on, and Nixon would win that decisively. A lot of Humphrey voters were reluctant voters, and without Wallace, they would be comfortable casting a ballot for Nixon.
As for no southern strategy period, have Wallace win the Democratic Primary (for, um, reasons) or some other Southern Democrat with conservative views on culture. Nixon will simply repeat traditional Republican victories of the 20th century.
So, the Southern Strategy wasn't as inevitable as it was after the Democrats passed Civil Rights.
So maybe a POD in which Humphrey wins in 1960, and then John Connally gets the nomination in 1968 (Johnson wouldn't have been that liked, too), with Nixon turning towards a Liberal-State strategy instead and sacrificing the South.
So maybe a POD in which Humphrey wins in 1960, and then John Connally gets the nomination in 1968 (Johnson wouldn't have been that liked, too), with Nixon turning towards a Liberal-State strategy instead and sacrificing the South.
If Nixon's taking Washington, Connecticut and Maine (GOP's hold on Upper New England), he may as well take Maryland as well, since OTL Humphrey won that state by 1.64%, maybe Pennsylvania as well, too, if he adopts a Northern Strategy instead.
aleasp
Banned
Nixon would have been in a strong position regardless, since many voters were frustrated with the status quo. Johnson administration had started out strong, with civil rights legislation, "Great Society" social programs, and perceived success in Vietnam War. Several years of urban race riots and sometimes violent anti-war protests, combined with the Tet offensive, which turned public opinion against the war, created a liability for Humphrey. When Nixon campaigned on a "law and order" platform and spoke of his "secret plan to end the war", many voters were willing to listen to him. If Humphrey hadn't been LBJ's vice president, he would have been a stronger candidate.
Nixon didn't "initiate the 'Southern strategy'". The obvious fact was that the "Solid South" had broken up in 1948, when the national Democratic Party embraced civil rights, and that after that, it was inevitable that the relatively conservative and rural South would move away from its unnatural 95% loyalty to the liberal and urban Democrats toward the Republicans.
In 1952 and 1956, Eisenhower carried Florida and Texas, both pillars of the once-Solid South. LBJ held Texas for the Democrats in 1960-1968, but it elected a Republican Senator in 1961 who was re-elected in 1966. Florida became demographically diverse, with northern in-migration, electing its first Republican governor in 1966.
The Upper South changed too. Arkansas elected a Republican governor in 1966; Tennessee elected a Republican Senator. In South Carolina, Senator Strom Thurmond was re-elected as a Republican in 1966.
Republicans were also winning House seats in areas they had been shut out of: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Virginia. In 1956, even with the "coat-tails" of Eisenhower's landslide re-election, Republicans won only 7 of 105 seats in "Confederate" states; they contested only 42. In 1966, they won 23 of 106, contesting 60.
All this was before 1968. Nixon's strategy in 1968 and 1972 was to appeal to Southerners on non-race "cultural" issues and keep silent on race issues. Southerners were at odds with the national Democrats in both areas; those who could overcome the conditioned reflex of voting Democrat (especially younger Southerners) flowed over to the Republicans, especially in Presidential voting.
No sensible Republican was going to do anything to stop this. (And it should be noted that Nixon's public reticence on race issues did not affect enforcement of the civil rights acts.)
Nixon winning in 1960 might do the trick. If he decides it's in his interest to do so and the nation wants it, he might get the Civil Rights Act through. That changes a lot of U.S. history.
The Republicans couldn't take the states they did in OTL with the Southern Strategy if they passed the Civil Rights Act and the Democrats were split between JFK northern liberals and George Wallace types, so I'm guessing there's a split there and we end up with a three party system.
The Republicans couldn't take the states they did in OTL with the Southern Strategy if they passed the Civil Rights Act and the Democrats were split between JFK northern liberals and George Wallace types, so I'm guessing there's a split there and we end up with a three party system.
How early or late do you think Wallace would have to not be an option for this? The easiest option would seem to be to have Arthur Bremer become mentally unstable four years earlier and be a better shot. That doesn't really work however if things are already too locked in by the time he's been selected as the candidate, or if LeMay would be able to attract enough votes himself in the aftermath.
I think you can prevent a Democratic Split by having a JFK and non-racist George Wallace in 1968.
You can make a pretty good argument that Nixon really had no choice if he wanted to win. And wanting to win was the reason for Nixon's existence, magnified greatly by his loss in 1960. So great was his need to win that the man sabotaged the Vietnam negotiations (see this week's NYT piece examining the evidence for this found in Bob Haldeman's diaries). Nixon really needed to pick off some Southern electoral votes to win; he stood no chance at all if the election went to the House of Representatives which was controlled lock stock and barrel by Democrats. He had to find a path to 270 and he got there with 301. The path for those 31 electoral votes ran square through the South. While Wallace picked up the very Deep South, Nixon picked off the periphery: Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida and South Carolina.
Towelie
Banned
The assasination attempt took place in the Democratic Primaries, in which Wallace was gaining a ton of momentum, and while the party brokers in the end never would have let him win, they wouldn't have pissed off the student radicals by doing it this time around.
Wallace was running on the AIP ticket. The AIP ticket was solely a thing because of Wallace and the need for a southern voice. That being said, I don't think there were other southern politicians with his charisma and beliefs who could have run.
For Wallace to not be an option, he needs to decide that 1968 is a bad year or for someone to beat him to the idea, in which case he would probably have to take a step back. Some candidates who could do this include Strom Thurmond (who was a charisma vacuum and would not have won more than maybe 3 states), Lester Maddox (hardly legitimate in his own state, but charismatic and far more competent than most would admit), and James Eastland (too much of a stereotype).
Last edited:
Right, looks as though Thurmond is reporting for duty then. This is getting filed away for my Ultimate-Nixon timeline where he ends up in the top ten in the historical rankings of US Presidents.
Democratic 1960s Option:
I can suggest my idea like I've said above, in which you could have Wallace not turn uber-racist by winning the 1958 Democratic Primaries in his state (not "out-niggered" as he said it). You have to butterfly away Patterson's run to make it happen.
You can have him be a popular Democrat Governor of Alabama who is moderate on race issues but a New Deal liberal, refuse to run in 1968 to serve Alabama, and by 1968, you can insert Thurmond instead. He can become President by 1976, and have the Iran crisis averted to allow him to serve two full terms.
If the Democrats are the incumbent party in the late 1960s unrest and a capable Southerner that appeals to fellow Southerners becomes the Democratic nominee (dunno who's this), then maybe Nixon goes North.
For the 1960s unrest, the Republicans can win because of it (if Democrats are the incumbent) and for the Southern nominee, he'll take the South and Border States (Kentucky, Virginia, South Carolina, etc.) with the Deep South?
How about Johnson, if he's the nominee in 1968 if JFK serves two terms?
Nixon 1968 without the Southern Strategy:
For the 1968 elections @Apollo 20, make that 67 electoral votes for Nixon. So let's take all those away, but I'll leave out Florida for Nixon as his win there was 9.6%, and if he didn't initiate the Southern Strategy, I guess he might have won by 2-3%.
Instead, he wins in Washington, Maryland, Maine (supposed to be a traditional GOP stronghold), Connecticut, perhaps Michigan if he selected Romney over Agnew if he doesn't appeal to Southerners, and lose Missouri, you get 275 electoral votes for Nixon, 5 more needed to win. I guess he can still win.
But please give your thoughts about this. I feel that I'm wrong in some areas.
I have the map below, from 270towin.com. Feel free to say anything about it.
EDIT: Oops, I did not make Florida red, and Kentucky's middle-of-the-ground, so you may make it red, too. Without Michigan, these two states can push Nixon over 270 as well.
Nixon 1960:
Well if he passes Civil Rights, the South will certainly be with the Democrats, for lack of a Southern Strategy.
I can suggest my idea like I've said above, in which you could have Wallace not turn uber-racist by winning the 1958 Democratic Primaries in his state (not "out-niggered" as he said it). You have to butterfly away Patterson's run to make it happen.
You can have him be a popular Democrat Governor of Alabama who is moderate on race issues but a New Deal liberal, refuse to run in 1968 to serve Alabama, and by 1968, you can insert Thurmond instead. He can become President by 1976, and have the Iran crisis averted to allow him to serve two full terms.
If the Democrats are the incumbent party in the late 1960s unrest and a capable Southerner that appeals to fellow Southerners becomes the Democratic nominee (dunno who's this), then maybe Nixon goes North.
For the 1960s unrest, the Republicans can win because of it (if Democrats are the incumbent) and for the Southern nominee, he'll take the South and Border States (Kentucky, Virginia, South Carolina, etc.) with the Deep South?
How about Johnson, if he's the nominee in 1968 if JFK serves two terms?
Nixon 1968 without the Southern Strategy:
For the 1968 elections @Apollo 20, make that 67 electoral votes for Nixon. So let's take all those away, but I'll leave out Florida for Nixon as his win there was 9.6%, and if he didn't initiate the Southern Strategy, I guess he might have won by 2-3%.
Instead, he wins in Washington, Maryland, Maine (supposed to be a traditional GOP stronghold), Connecticut, perhaps Michigan if he selected Romney over Agnew if he doesn't appeal to Southerners, and lose Missouri, you get 275 electoral votes for Nixon, 5 more needed to win. I guess he can still win.
But please give your thoughts about this. I feel that I'm wrong in some areas.
I have the map below, from 270towin.com. Feel free to say anything about it.
EDIT: Oops, I did not make Florida red, and Kentucky's middle-of-the-ground, so you may make it red, too. Without Michigan, these two states can push Nixon over 270 as well.
Nixon 1960:
Well if he passes Civil Rights, the South will certainly be with the Democrats, for lack of a Southern Strategy.
Attachments
Last edited:
Nope. By 1966, Thurmond was a Republican. Also no Senator or Representative joined either Dixiecrat campaign.Right, looks as though Thurmond is reporting for duty then. This is getting filed away for my Ultimate-Nixon timeline where he ends up in the top ten in the historical rankings of US Presidents.
Wallace had run in the 1964 primaries outside the South; no other Dixiecrat had. If Wallace sits out, there won't be a Dixiecrat campaign in 1968.
Thurmond the real across-the-board-conservative Democrat pre-1964?
How about Orval Faubus? Ross Barnett?
Interesting if the South stays Democrat in 1968 even if Humphrey's the candidate.
How about Orval Faubus? Ross Barnett?
Interesting if the South stays Democrat in 1968 even if Humphrey's the candidate.
That works (though the margin in Maine was big for Humphrey), but it's an awfully close-run thing. Risky as all hell with no room for error; Nixon would have to run a flawless campaign. You have to think like Nixon in 1968. You've lost once and this is your last shot at the one thing you want in life above everything. I'd submit that taking a chance would be out of character for Nixon and that going South was the less risky move with a lot of voters simmering with racial resentment who hated Humphrey and who could be picked off with a wink and a nod.
You win elections by going first after the low hanging fruit and by 1968, that fruit was south of the Mason-Dixon line, the price LBJ knew would be paid for signing the Civil Rights Act. And there was more than racial resentment at work here. The South has always been military country, chock full of veterans and military bases. Losing the war in Vietnam would be a bitter pill for them and they loathed the antiwar movement. What better way to voice one's disapproval for that movement than casting a ballot for Dick Nixon, a man who could be counted on to support the war and the military and bring about what they wanted: peace with honor. People laughed at that phrase of Nixon's, but to millions, it had meaning. Withdrawal under the cloud of defeat or stalemate was dishonorable. Nixon was promising them a peace that could be swallowed as at least a quasi-victory in an honorable cause. Wallace was a way to send a message. Nixon was a way to send a President who at least partially shared their values unlike Humphrey, who promised more unions, more welfare (to those people, no less), more integration, more civil rights and defeat in Vietnam.
The 1968 election was incredibly close. The popular vote margin was 500,000 votes and there were 13 states with 223 electoral votes where the margin was less than 5%. Nixon won 9 of these, which meant that some of them would have been in some doubt when setting strategy, which comes back to the idea of pursuing the plan with the better chance of winning. For Nixon in 1968, that meant going south. I find the logic to be pretty compelling, even more so if you think strategically and recognize that the old New Deal coalition was coming apart. To get a different strategy, you need a different election. Perhaps you get a weird populist uprising where Wallace is the Democratic nominee in 1968. That would force Nixon to go north for votes and he'd be pursuing a northern strategy chasing after liberals and moderate Democrats repulsed by Wallace. For that matter, Nixon would be chasing black votes in such an election. But Wallace is only one route to get a different election since 1968 was a year full of possible PODs. But in a race against Hubert Humphrey, yeah, Nixon's got to go south.
The easiest way to avoid the Southern Strategy would have been for Nixon and some other leaders in the GOP to realize that accepting into the Party of Lincoln people who were leaving the Democratic Party because they were mad about civil rights legislation was probably not such a hot idea long term.
They then state very publicly on numerous occasions that those folks were free to leave the Democratic Party but they were not welcome in Lincoln's Party. Would have been controversial at the time, today they would be hailed as visionaries.
They then state very publicly on numerous occasions that those folks were free to leave the Democratic Party but they were not welcome in Lincoln's Party. Would have been controversial at the time, today they would be hailed as visionaries.
History Learner
Banned
Wallace would do better in such a situation, as he nearly took a lot of the Southern states Nixon got. Long term though, I think it was inevitable by the 1960s for the South to drift into the GOP's column without some major changes. As early as the 1920s, Republicans were starting to make serious inroads and Evangelicals had been a GOP voting bloc since about the 1930s/1940s (Mainly related to the China lobby at that stage).