What would the effects be of a Nixon-Rockerfeller ticket?

Would such a ticket have made the Republican party in the long term stronger with African American voters and weaker with Southern whites than in OTL? Would the Republican party evolve into the more liberal party? Or would the domination of Goldwater conservatism just be delayed?
 
Would such a ticket have made the Republican party in the long term stronger with African American voters and weaker with Southern whites than in OTL? Would the Republican party evolve into the more liberal party? Or would the domination of Goldwater conservatism just be delayed?
Depends on whether you mean before or after the Civil Rights Act. Once the Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans, the current alignment was all but assured. Hell, you might even need a pre-FDR POD to get the Republicans to be the 'liberal' party in American Politics.
 
Depends on whether you mean before or after the Civil Rights Act. Once the Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans, the current alignment was all but assured. Hell, you might even need a pre-FDR POD to get the Republicans to be the 'liberal' party in American Politics.

I was considering also the potential to have both parties have liberal, moderate and conservative factions respectively. Would this ticket winning make that more likely? I would want both parties to be strong in all major regions of the U.S.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I was considering also the potential to have both parties have liberal, moderate and conservative factions respectively. Would this ticket winning make that more likely? I would want both parties to be strong in all major regions of the U.S.
If you have Rockefeller on the ticket, you're going to have more than just Civil Rights. But at the same time, Nixon isn't going to win because of the backlash he would have faced from Conservative Republicans- a backlash that may have resulted in a third party candidate running from the right and splitting the vote, giving Kennedy an even bigger victory. Indeed it is easy to forget how hostile Nixon and the 'Rockefeller Liberal' platform was received at the 1960 Republican National Convention- the man was booed and heckled, and even among pro-Nixon liberals and moderates the platform was problematic because it was drawn in the backroom and would have scuttled the Southern Strategy, and indeed overall the programme drawn up between the two men was simply too alienating to key Republican votes in the Midwest and South.

If Nixon can get Rocky onto the ticket (as he did indeed try and do IoTL, only to be turned down by Rocky who made impossible policy promises such as a National Insurance System), then it's unlikely he'll win, be it because of a split of because of how alienated the base would be. Indeed, it's unlikely the Liberal Republicans would even survive the election if they caused a larger defeat. 1960 was their Alamo- they were on the final fight with change that had been happening on for 48 years, a change with so much momentum behind it that it wasn't going to suddenly be stopped by Nixon forcefully pivoting the party to the centre. At his core, Nixon was a conservative, a by-product of his upbringing, and although he was a self described 'liberal' on Civil Rights (which he refused to budge on in committees due to his personal and moral standings on the subject), you aren't going to get a more 'liberal' Republican party from him just going for Rocky.

And you want both parties to be strong in all major regions of the US... but it doesn't work like that? It's never worked like that, and indeed can never work like that, and if Nixon and Rockefeller got in and for unknown reasons could lurch the Republicans back to a liberal toe line, it's hardly going to suddenly make both the Republicans and Democrats strong in all the major regions.
 
Last edited:
If you have Rockefeller on the ticket, you're going to have more than just Civil Rights. But at the same time, Nixon isn't going to win because of the backlash he would have faced from Conservative Republicans- a backlash that may have resulted in a third party candidate running from the right and splitting the vote, giving Kennedy an even bigger victory. Indeed it is easy to forget how hostile Nixon and the 'Rockefeller Liberal' platform was received at the 1960 Republican National Convention- the man was booed and heckled, and even among pro-Nixon liberals and moderates the platform was problematic because it was drawn in the backroom and would have scuttled the Southern Strategy, and indeed overall the programme drawn up between the two men was simply too alienating to key Republican votes in the Midwest and South.

If Nixon can get Rocky onto the ticket (as he did indeed try and do IoTL, only to be turned down by Rocky who made impossible policy promises such as a National Insurance System), then it's unlikely he'll win, be it because of a split of because of how alienated the base would be. Indeed, it's unlikely the Liberal Republicans would even survive the election if they caused a larger defeat. 1960 was their Alamo- they were on the final fight with change that had been happening on for 44 years, a change with so much momentum behind it that it wasn't going to suddenly be stopped by Nixon forcefully pivoting the party to the centre. At his core, Nixon was a conservative, a by-product of his upbringing, and although he was a self described 'liberal' on Civil Rights (which he refused to budge on in committees due to his personal and moral standings on the subject), you aren't going to get a more 'liberal' Republican party from him just going for Rocky.

And you want both parties to be strong in all major regions of the US... but it doesn't work like that? It's never worked like that, and indeed can never work like that, and if Nixon and Rockefeller got in and for unknown reasons could lurch the Republicans back to a liberal toe line, it's hardly going to suddenly make both the Republicans and Democrats strong in all the major regions.



Well during the second party system (before the 1850's) both the Democrats and Whigs had their strongholds in both the north and the south. Something like that is what I am interested in.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Well during the second party system (before the 1850's) both the Democrats and Whigs had their strongholds in both the north and the south. Something like that is what I am interested in.
The Second Party system was the first time two major parties challenged each other nationally, hence 'strongholds in the north and south'- and they weren't even strongholds, it was simply that regional politics was in an upturn because of the intrusion of the parties from the North and South for the first time giving people real choices. Not to mention that during that period, only 10-15% of the population could and did vote.

But if Nixon can somehow convince the Republicans to go along with the Nixon-Rockefeller platform, you aren't going to get parties 'strong in all regions', because even during the Second Party system, there was a clear divide of who was strong where- indeed the entire existence of parties such as the Anti-Masonic's was the result of one of the two parties being regionally weaker.
 
The Second Party system was the first time two major parties challenged each other nationally, hence 'strongholds in the north and south'- and they weren't even strongholds, it was simply that regional politics was in an upturn because of the intrusion of the parties from the North and South for the first time giving people real choices. Not to mention that during that period, only 10-15% of the population could and did vote.

But if Nixon can somehow convince the Republicans to go along with the Nixon-Rockefeller platform, you aren't going to get parties 'strong in all regions', because even during the Second Party system, there was a clear divide of who was strong where- indeed the entire existence of parties such as the Anti-Masonic's was the result of one of the two parties being regionally weaker.

Kentucky and Massachusetts were Whig strongholds, while South Carolina and New Hampshire were Democratic strongholds. That's all I mean. I guess even in these days both parties are competing in the Midwest, the South, and the Southwest, but I appreciate your point.
 
Top