Watergate in a timeline where nixon lost.

Well first off Nixon has to lose. I suppose the easiest POD is no Chappaquiddick and hence Ted Kennedy runs in 1972 and wins. Perhaps butterflies make Viet Nam go a little worse making it a little easier. (We can have a different Democrat, I suppose, run and win. Muskie, pre-"cry", was ahead of Nixon in the polls a few times if I recall correctly.)

Secondly does Watergate matter as much? Nixon lost, the Democrats are in. Is it worth it to keep following the story or do the editors take them off the case because there's no real point to kicking Nixon around?

If it remains a minor story, America will be better off. The establishment Republican forces will retain some power (i.e. the people who believe in balanced budgets), people's faith in government won't be quite as shaken, and the right-wing war against the press will be at a lower key if at all without Nixon and without Nixon's downfall.

All good things.

If the story blows up that the consequences are around as bad as OTL, in the long-run. Perhaps worse, because with a Democrat in office it looks a lot like helping reporters to kick Nixon when he's down.

Ford will retire as he planned to, Reagan will be the Republican nominee in 1976 (interestingly pre supply-siders), and the Watergate Babies will not exist—or mostly not exist.

Without running McGovern and with the Democrats now being the ones propping up South Vietnam (no Watergate means money/guns keeps South Vietnam existing) they should remain strong on defence in the eyes of the public the way JFK & LBJ were. The Democrats now have the chance to recover their balance they never really got IOTL.

The Republicans may still be hurt by Watergate, but much less so. Reagan may or may not win in 1976, and either way it probably turns out ok.
 
So quick point that I'd like to make-

Watergate was not an isolated incident. It was a very public screw-up by a large and coordinated campaign that Nixon operatives had been operating since at least the '68 campaign season. Watergate happened in Nixon's first term, so I think that it is safe to say that the campaign started out in a legal gray area at best, and quickly descended into outright criminal acts.

Basically, I don't think that Nixon is going to lose to anyone but RFK (and maybe not even to him) in 1968. By 1972 I don't think it was possible for Nixon to lose the presidential campaign. His campaign apparatus was operating a large criminal conspiracy that was committed to Richard Nixon, and was willing to do just about anything to keep him in office.

Anyway, I'm very firmly into the whole Nixon was the head of a vast criminal conspiracy thing, so I don't think he can lose in '72.
 
Watergate was not an isolated incident. It was a very public screw-up by a large and coordinated campaign that Nixon operatives had been operating since at least the '68 campaign season. Watergate happened in Nixon's first term, so I think that it is safe to say that the campaign started out in a legal gray area at best, and quickly descended into outright criminal acts.

Basically, I don't think that Nixon is going to lose to anyone but RFK (and maybe not even to him) in 1968. By 1972 I don't think it was possible for Nixon to lose the presidential campaign. His campaign apparatus was operating a large criminal conspiracy that was committed to Richard Nixon, and was willing to do just about anything to keep him in office.

Anyway, I'm very firmly into the whole Nixon was the head of a vast criminal conspiracy thing, so I don't think he can lose in '72.

Key point to make: It was a fairly large and co-ordinated effort against Nixon's political enemies (for example, Muskie slurring French-Americans in New England was faked) but it was also poorly done and run by a bunch of idiots.

They had vast amounts of cash, yes, but didn't apply it well and the dirty tricks squad varied in effectiveness from decent to damn poor. It might been a criminal conspiracy, but it was an amateur one.


Like I said, Nixon can lose in 1972 (it's just an election, after all) but given that his first term went well he has to be facing both a qualified Democrat (of which EMK is best for our purposes) and Viet Nam has to screw up somewhere. I'm not entirely certain you realize just how badly McGovern went down in the electorate. Given a qualified alternative to a Nixon whose Viet Nam plan was looking as bad as it was back in '68 than the Democrats win.

(As for 1968 Humphrey's poor underfunded campaign almost beat Nixon, give him more money and a better staff and he'd win; I'm reasonably certain RFK would have beaten Nixon as well.)
 
Top