I think you'd still have a chance of three Presidents in the 70s with a Humphrey win. By that I mean HHH winning in 68, only to lose in 72 to a Republican who goes on to narrowly lose in 1976 due to the economy, and then finally the Democrat elected in 1976 losing in 1980 for similar reasons Carter lost.
What if Humphrey won in 1968?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
- Status
If Humphrey wins:
The US stays on the Gold Standard slightly longer?
Rockefeller is the 1972 GOP nominee. If he loses, then Reagan is the nominee in '76.
Gerald Ford remains a relative back-bencher in US politics. Maybe becomes Speaker of the House.
Vietnam goes better, with the North being more willing to recognize the South's independence for at least a few more years.
He forms a Department of Education. Supports school busing.
The US stays on the Gold Standard slightly longer?
Rockefeller is the 1972 GOP nominee. If he loses, then Reagan is the nominee in '76.
Gerald Ford remains a relative back-bencher in US politics. Maybe becomes Speaker of the House.
Vietnam goes better, with the North being more willing to recognize the South's independence for at least a few more years.
He forms a Department of Education. Supports school busing.
Why should Vietnam go better? I say Saigon falls 1972, daming Humpfreys chances to get reelected.
I think I see what you’re saying. A more liberal Supreme Court leads to a backlash, correct? I’ll just say . .
(1) The Court often kind of picks a quirky aspect of a case anyway, and let’s the whole thing hinge on that, and
(2) Nixon played a yin-yang and both sides against the middle on school equality. He did speak against busing. But then on the other side . . .
for example, in 1970, after the Supreme Court had finally decided that no more delays and school desegregation had to go forward, Nixon formed a commission with Vice-President Agnew nominally in charge, but really then-Secretary of Labor George Shultz doing the lion’s share of the work.
The Nixon admin. helped to form a biracial commission in each southern state and invited them to visit the White House. Shultz would let them have their say and argue for about two hours to get it out of their systems.
Then, Shultz would invite in Atty. Gen. John Mitchell who, being gruff and puffing on his pipe, would say that he was going to enforce the law.
At lunch, he took them to visit the diplomatic reception rooms at the State Department including seeing a desk at which Thomas Jefferson had written parts of the Declaration of Independence.
Shultz also mentioned that they had created a small kitty out of Department of Health, Education and Welfare money. If they had minor expenditures, he could provide some money quickly.
And then, late in the day, this delegation from Mississippi or Georgia or Arkansas or wherever would meet with President Nixon. “We live in a great democracy where authority and responsibility are shared,'' Shultz remembered him saying. ''Just as decisions are made here in this office, decisions are made throughout the states and communities of our country. You are leaders in those communities and you have to step up to your responsibilities. '' In these performances, Nixon was very much “on.”
And apparently, this worked to (finally, belatedly!!) desegregate southern schools in actual fact.
Like I’m saying, Nixon played both sides against the middle.
——-
How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools, New York Times, Editorial by George Shultz, Jan. 8, 2003
Opinion | How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools (Published 2003)
George P Shultz Op-Ed article on Pres Nixon's campaign to see that Brown v Topeka Board of Education was enforced in 1970 when school segregation faced determined opposition in seven southern states; notes work of biracial committees that he, Shultz, helped form in each state; recalls that Vice...
Shultz very much praises the job Nixon did in helping to desegregate. For example, in March 1970 before Shultz had started with the various biracial commissions, Nixon had said that the Supreme Court’s original Brown v. Board of Education decision was “right in both constitutional and human terms.”
Last edited:
HHH likely wins reelection, plus decent odds of his successor getting a term in 76. Granted his successor would probably lose reelection in 1980 because even a toned down 1970s would be bad news for whoever won in 1976.
It took watergate, ford being useless, Carter being even worse(ford's uselessness combined with blowing up old coalitions) to breed the modern 8/12 years you're out fickleness of voters in OTL. IMO that transition took until Bush Sr. botching the 92 election to complete.
It took watergate, ford being useless, Carter being even worse(ford's uselessness combined with blowing up old coalitions) to breed the modern 8/12 years you're out fickleness of voters in OTL. IMO that transition took until Bush Sr. botching the 92 election to complete.
Humphrey does a peace deal, much on the basis that Nixon did. a couple of years earlier than otl. Republicans get angry. Reagan loses by almost a Goldwater margin in 1972. Republicans run a moderat in 1976 likely a Republican year. Economic issues in late 70s mean Democrats win in 1980. Hopefully much less of shock therapy advice from the WEst after Berlin wall falls
The Keys to the White House - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The keys are a prediction system for the presidental election. I assume its like with most of this systems. They work, till they work not. Still I think its fun to use the keys to predict an alternate election of 1972.
Here are the keys:
- Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. We can assume, that the Dems will have 1970 less seats then 1966. Humpfrey lose this key.
- Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Here iis the question, what will Wallace do? I assume, he will not challange a sitting presiident for the nomination. H wins key.
- Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. H wins key.
- Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Here comes Wallace again. A third party run is likely, but will his assaination get butterflied away? Key undecided.
- Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. If there is no change to otl, then H wins key.
- Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Don´t knnow ennough about the economy in this time. Key undecided.
- Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. The major changes like Civil Rights and Great Society aalready happend befoore 1968. Unlikely, that there will be new major changes. H lose key.
- Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. The time of social unrest seemed to be over in 1972. H wins key.
- Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. H wins key.
- Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Like OTL N. Vietnam will be ready for a new offensive in 1972. For hanoi it was never about peace, but always about victory. Without the massive US-air support, its most likely, that S. Vietnam will collapse. H lose key.
- Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. A peace deal in 1969 would be seen as sucess, but this will lose its worth, when S. Vietnam collapse. I also don´t see Humpfrey go to Chins. OOr have some breakthroughs with the Soviets. H lose key..
- Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Was Humpfrey charsmatic? Afteer all he nearly turned the 1968 election. Key undecided.
- Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Lets assume its Ronny Raygun. H lose key.
I like the fact that they’re viewing an election as first and foremost a thumbs up or thumbs down on the incumbent president (and more broadly the incumbent party).
I do think the economy is more important than even two of the 13 points.
I don´t think its possible to win with both this keys negative (but who knows, maybe the current iincumbent will surprise us again) Still, I think the economy was rather good in 1952 and 1968 and still the wars ruined the incumbents.
In the 1st Quarter of 1973, GDP growth was 7.6%. So, the economy was on a clear upswing at time of the ‘72 election.
Reagan in '72 probably runs on a "goldwater was too progressive/compromising" type campaign, so I see HHH beating him even if he does botch vietnam.
I agree that the economy was good for both the ‘52 and ‘68 elections.
I’d also point out that in both cases it was merely the incumbent party. And of course in ‘52, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Republican nominee.
Giiven, that Reagan won two times with large margin in California, I assume he knew how appeall to moderates. So he will put on this old Hollywood charme, speak of "12years of failure" and promise to "make America great again".
Interessting graph. The question now is, was the recession of 69/70 enough to turn the long term key into a lose.
There are a lot of butterflies associated with things like a changed Supreme Court, no modern presidential primary system, and no Watergate. Also very different rhetoric coming from the President and Vice President. The optics are different, including a Democratic White House for twelve or sixteen straight years, plus whatever narrative is adopted around the 1968 election.
Actual policies from the administration are probably not that different. Remember a lot of "liberal" initiatives associated with the Great Society were done by the Nixon Administration. The Supreme Court with four Nixon appointees did abolish the death penalty, just only temporarily, and legalized abortion. Affirmative action as we understand it was also a Nixon Administration/ Supreme Court deal. The Humphrey peace deal with Vietnam is pretty much the same as the Nixon peace deal, but you probably get there quicker, and at least without the invasion of Cambodia. South Vietnam in fact has a better chance of survival in this scenario, partly this is due to not being able to do much worse than the timeline we got, and partly this is due to more willingness by Congress to support them post peace deal. After the 1970 mid-term elections, Humphrey has a Congress that is less Democratic/ liberal than the one Nixon got, and this is even more true after the 1974 elections if Humphrey gets a second term.
Kissenger may well still have an important role in a Humphrey administration. A Humphrey second term is very likely, Presidents losing re-election outright is much rarer than people tend to think. Humphrey actually had more executive experience than Nixon, both had been Vice President, but Humphrey had also been a big city mayor, so his administration would have been fairly competently staffed and run, and he wouldn't have had Carter's problems with Congress.
Actual policies from the administration are probably not that different. Remember a lot of "liberal" initiatives associated with the Great Society were done by the Nixon Administration. The Supreme Court with four Nixon appointees did abolish the death penalty, just only temporarily, and legalized abortion. Affirmative action as we understand it was also a Nixon Administration/ Supreme Court deal. The Humphrey peace deal with Vietnam is pretty much the same as the Nixon peace deal, but you probably get there quicker, and at least without the invasion of Cambodia. South Vietnam in fact has a better chance of survival in this scenario, partly this is due to not being able to do much worse than the timeline we got, and partly this is due to more willingness by Congress to support them post peace deal. After the 1970 mid-term elections, Humphrey has a Congress that is less Democratic/ liberal than the one Nixon got, and this is even more true after the 1974 elections if Humphrey gets a second term.
Kissenger may well still have an important role in a Humphrey administration. A Humphrey second term is very likely, Presidents losing re-election outright is much rarer than people tend to think. Humphrey actually had more executive experience than Nixon, both had been Vice President, but Humphrey had also been a big city mayor, so his administration would have been fairly competently staffed and run, and he wouldn't have had Carter's problems with Congress.
That was in the mid 60s of OTL. An ATL 1972 where HHH is at least semi-successful will likely force Reagan to drop the idea of even goldwater levels of moderate compromse.
I don’t think so. 1970 was a pipsqueak of a recession. But there were other factors . . .
an increasing U.S. trade deficit,
going off even a nominal gold standard (that is, moving away from Bretton Woods)
a harder-to-understand but more mild type of stagflation (less serious than the easy to understand stagflation brought on by the oil shocks of 1973 and ‘79)
Nixon’s Treasury Secretary John Connally leading the way on wage and price controls 1971
All of this can lead to types of fundamentalism and people getting angry and yelling from the sidelines.
The alternative is steady eddie and steering the ship of state. Realizing that GDP growth is the single most important number, various employment numbers second, with inflation a close third. I’m willing to compromise and say employment and inflation are equally important.
I'm actually going to go against the grain and give Humphrey decent odds of winning re-election. Remember that despite the 1969 recession, by 72 the economy was recovered and would under Humphrey as well. I also don't see him being incredibly unpopular- people liked Humphrey, and he was a skilled politician. There's a reason he managed to come all the way back and almost win in '68. I think he'd wipe the floor with Reagan if he ran- Reagan was too conservative in 1972, Humphrey doesn't have the issues Carter had, and the country overall should be doing alright at this time. A more liberal Republican might do better, but probably still lose. On the flip side Republicans probably win in 1976, and I don't think it's guaranteed they lose in 1980. Butterflies will have been flapping their wings for 12 years at that point, remember.
Domestically, Humphrey works with Democratic majorities to expand Great Society programs, which were still quite popular. We likely see some sort of government option on healthcare passing. IOTL Nixon offered to accept a sort of proto-Obamacare, but Kennedy held out, hoping for a Democratic President to pass more expansive healthcare reform. ITTL Humphrey will be looking for the most coverage possible and get something that will be in line with what a lot of other developed nations passed at this time. Busing is pursued, but probably not much more aggressively than it was under Nixon- George Romney was quite progressive on this issue IOTL. In general, Humphrey acts as a New Deal Democrat domestically, supporting labor, appointing liberal judges, pushing for more government action, but not rocking the boat massively.
In foreign policy we see a quicker end to the Vietnam war, and probably a quicker end to South Vietnam as a result. Conservatives will blame Humphrey for this. There will be no war in Cambodia. It's possible Humphrey works out some sort of deal with China, though I'm not sure if it would be quite as decisive. Detente goes forward somewhat similarly to under Nixon.
Beyond those general ideas, a lot depends on butterflies and how the details play out. It's a very interesting concept. Long term the New Deal Coalition may stay together, or at least last longer than IOTL. The Court will stay fairly liberal, and attempts at deregulation may find opposition there. Trust in government will be maintained and prevent the cynicism that entered American politics, possibly reducing hyperpartisanship as well though the internet will still eventually lead to that. Hard to say if the Soviets last longer or not, or if China economically liberalizes or not.
Domestically, Humphrey works with Democratic majorities to expand Great Society programs, which were still quite popular. We likely see some sort of government option on healthcare passing. IOTL Nixon offered to accept a sort of proto-Obamacare, but Kennedy held out, hoping for a Democratic President to pass more expansive healthcare reform. ITTL Humphrey will be looking for the most coverage possible and get something that will be in line with what a lot of other developed nations passed at this time. Busing is pursued, but probably not much more aggressively than it was under Nixon- George Romney was quite progressive on this issue IOTL. In general, Humphrey acts as a New Deal Democrat domestically, supporting labor, appointing liberal judges, pushing for more government action, but not rocking the boat massively.
In foreign policy we see a quicker end to the Vietnam war, and probably a quicker end to South Vietnam as a result. Conservatives will blame Humphrey for this. There will be no war in Cambodia. It's possible Humphrey works out some sort of deal with China, though I'm not sure if it would be quite as decisive. Detente goes forward somewhat similarly to under Nixon.
Beyond those general ideas, a lot depends on butterflies and how the details play out. It's a very interesting concept. Long term the New Deal Coalition may stay together, or at least last longer than IOTL. The Court will stay fairly liberal, and attempts at deregulation may find opposition there. Trust in government will be maintained and prevent the cynicism that entered American politics, possibly reducing hyperpartisanship as well though the internet will still eventually lead to that. Hard to say if the Soviets last longer or not, or if China economically liberalizes or not.
some material for the discussion
- Status