WI: Anyone but Curtis LeMay in '68

[Emperor Norton I]

Well, as Ariosto said in so many words, Wallace may have been a spoiler for Nixon in the South, but he was a spoiler for Humphrey in the North, taking the votes of white working-class urban voters. So it's likely that if Wallace is doing as well in the South as you have him doing there, the vote-splitting in the North would result in Nixon winning Maryland (assuming Agnew's still on the Republican ticket) and Pennsylvania, along with possibly New York and Michigan.

Here's the map tweaked to the minimal change in your scenario.

Humphrey: 152
Nixon: 286
Wallace: 100

Here's the maximum scenario in your scenario.

Humphrey: 88
Nixon: 350
Wallace: 100

 

[Emperor Norton I]

On the issue of Wallace depriving Humphrey of states if he does better, depending on when Wallace picked his running mate (I don't know the date or the potential dates), if that is before the Democratic convention could that potentially influence who Humphrey has as VP, which then further affects the election?

 

[Andrew T]

On the issue of Wallace depriving Humphrey of states if he does better, depending on when Wallace picked his running mate (I don't know the date or the potential dates), if that is before the Democratic convention could that potentially influence who Humphrey has as VP, which then further affects the election?

Wallace chose LeMay on October 3, 1968, and his campaign was credited with "gaining momentum" in September of 1968. The major parties' conventions were held in August -- 8/5 for Nixon/Agnew and 8/26 for Humphrey/Muskie.

 

[terrellk]

I was messing around with electoral atlas. Is this what you had in mind? It's 100 EVs exactly (and throws the election to the House due to no electoral majority).

That was pretty much exactly what I had in mind, maybe even with Virginia coming into play as well, thus ~100 EVs.

Chandler was a non-starter with Wallace's base.

Former Gov. of GA Marvin Griffin was a stand-in for VP early on, could just stay.

A dark horse I tend to like (use him in a non-posted TL I'm failing to write) is Sam Yorty, Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but if Chandler is a non-starter (I'm assuming because he integrated professional baseball) then Yorty is just as much a non-starter because he's 1) integrated the city government of LA, 2) already made himself unappealing to whites on the other side by taking sides against the Kennedys, and 3) hoping for a cabinet appointment in Nixon's administration. The most important of those, however, is the first one. Chandler only integrated sports. How much worse would white southerners react to a man who had actually integrated GOVERNMENT?

That's a fair point, but here's the counterargument: LeMay was named as Wallace's VP on October 3, 1968. As I look at the -- admittedly sparse -- Gallup history of Presidential polling, and here's what I see:

• In 1968, Wallace stayed at 20-21% in the polls until late September; by October he was polling at 15%. Actual share of vote: 13.5%.
• In 1980, John B. Anderson hit polling highs of 24% in the summer; by October, he was down to 8-9%. Actual share of vote: 6.6%.
• In 1992, Ross Perot peaked at 39%; ultimately, he dropped out, re-entered the race (at 8%), and had a late surge to 20% in October, before dwindling to 14% on Election Day. Actual share of vote: 18.9%.
• In 1996, Perot peaked at 19%; by July, he was polling at 7%, which is where he finished. Actual share of vote: 8.4%.
• In 2000, Nader hovered around the margin of error all year (2-4%); his final vote total was 2.7%.

So five isn't a lot of data points, and Ross Perot actually outperformed his final poll numbers (which surprised me) -- but I think there's some evidence there that third party candidates tend to peak and then peter out by Election Day. The obvious thesis would be that "soft" supporters of a third party candidate are more likely to abandon ship once the evidence is in that their guy is going to lose.

Right, and I see your point. Note also, though, that in each of those cases (particularly Wallace and Anderson) that each had a surge of momentum early before they not only stalled, but plummeted as well. If Wallace can either maintain momentum or just remain even without going into full-blown tailspin in October, then I think he'll maintain his poll numbers. The other part of my scenario included a Humphrey campaign that fails to gain any momentum in the fall. If HHH's campaign never gets off the ground in October, then Wallace probably retains his support among blue-collar workers who are wary of Nixon.

Again, I get your thesis, but consider the baseline: Wallace won just 11.8% of the vote in Ohio, 11.4% in Indiana, and a tick under 8% in Pennsylvania. You're talking about tripling or quadrupling his support in those states to make them competitive, and that strikes me as somewhat implausible no matter who the vice-presidential nominee is.

I didn't mean to suggest that he could win those states, just that he could gain more support there and play a larger spoiler role. I see where what I said reads like that, but that's not how it was meant. Anyhow, yeah, I don't think he's going to take those states by any means, but he'll make a stronger showing there (mid-twenties in Ohio and Indiana, high teens in Pennsylvania) which would help is overall percentage of the national vote.

One final point: I'm not sure I would want to bet on the counterfactual that Happy "I said most of the Zimbabweans were n-----s and they are n-----s" Chandler wouldn't gaffe on the campaign trail in a similarly damaging way.

I actually never heard that story before. Talk about digging yourself deeper and deeper. It's possible that he'll say something stupid like that in 1968, but nothing but nothing will be as bad for Wallace as LeMay's advocacy for nuclear war.

Well, as Ariosto said in so many words, Wallace may have been a spoiler for Nixon in the South, but he was a spoiler for Humphrey in the North, taking the votes of white working-class urban voters. So it's likely that if Wallace is doing as well in the South as you have him doing there, the vote-splitting in the North would result in Nixon winning Maryland (assuming Agnew's still on the Republican ticket) and Pennsylvania, along with possibly New York and Michigan.

Right. Like both of you said, he's going to play a major spoiler for Humphrey if he holds more of the vote. The irony is that as Wallace did worse, Humphrey did better while Nixon remained steady in the polls. A better Wallace Performance is likely to aid Nixon more than HHH in reaching 270 EVs.

On the issue of Wallace depriving Humphrey of states if he does better, depending on when Wallace picked his running mate (I don't know the date or the potential dates), if that is before the Democratic convention could that potentially influence who Humphrey has as VP, which then further affects the election?

Wallace had to wait until after the Democratic convention to pick his running mate because he couldn't get anyone to sign on for the spot until the events of Chicago had gone down. An earlier pick would probably result in a weaker pick like Governor Griffin. Wallace was helped, obviously, by the convention debacle and, as such, he can't possibly pick a running mate until after the conventions have been completed.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

If Wallace manages to get these better results, how does that affect '72? Would it embolden Wallace to run once again against Nixon as a third party (if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination)? And how would it effect Nixon to have his southern strategy fail in '68, with Wallace sewing up the south and those blue collar whites that year?

 

[vultan]

If Wallace manages to get these better results, how does that affect '72? Would it embolden Wallace to run once again against Nixon as a third party (if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination)? And how would it effect Nixon to have his southern strategy fail in '68, with Wallace sewing up the south and those blue collar whites that year?

Well, in a scenario with a much better performance from the American Independent Party as a whole, George Mahoney, may be elected to the Senate from Maryland, which would have interesting effects...

 

[Whanztastic]

If Wallace manages to get these better results, how does that affect '72? Would it embolden Wallace to run once again against Nixon as a third party (if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination)? And how would it effect Nixon to have his southern strategy fail in '68, with Wallace sewing up the south and those blue collar whites that year?

It is quite possible that Wallace attempts to form a solid third party. Democrats are loosing the southern vote but they have yet to fully cling to the GOP, especially at the local and state level.

If there were a viable third choice, it is entirely conceivable that the Dixiecrats reject the Party of Lincoln and the American Independent Party may have a footing.

Combine that with disaffected Goldwaterites like Gov. Reagan and the spectrum that supports Conservative Senator James Buckley, the AIP can win the "Law and Order" vote from the GOP in the aftermath of Watergate, especially if Wallace is not shot.

 

[vultan]

Combine that with disaffected Goldwaterites like Gov. Reagan and the spectrum that supports Conservative Senator James Buckley, the AIP can win the "Law and Order" vote from the GOP in the aftermath of Watergate, especially if Wallace is not shot.

The presence of another major American political party would almost certainly preclude the Watergate scandal as we know it in this scenario.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I could see the AIP having a good run, ('68, '72, maybe '76) but I don't know if it could remain a permanent/new major party. It could be like Perot's Reform party, being a major force so long as it's poster boy is running, and it could be like the Bull Moose party where you had people of the party get elected to office elsewhere. However, it seems like America always goes back into the two parties, and so I get the feeling that regardless of that stuff, the people voting AIP, or holding office as AIP, will -as the AIP falls into the background- just go back to supporting the Democrats or Republicans. The American Independent party could be like an incubator for future Republicans, instead of the Dixiecrats going slowly but surely straight into the GOP, but I get the feeling it will only be a major force for so long.

 

[terrellk]

If Wallace manages to get these better results, how does that affect '72? Would it embolden Wallace to run once again against Nixon as a third party (if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination)? And how would it effect Nixon to have his southern strategy fail in '68, with Wallace sewing up the south and those blue collar whites that year?

I wouldn't count on another third party Wallace run, even if he had more success. There is speculation supported by very circumstantial evidence (this Nixon affiliate met with this Wallace affiliate and gave him an envelope that probably contained a bunch of money) that heading into 1972 Nixon's plan was to get Wallace into the Democratic primaries and out of the general election. Convince Wallace to run in the Democratic primaries (better yet, convince him that he can win the Democratic nomination) and take him out of the general election picture in 1972, and the south is ripe for Nixon's picking.

The point is that Nixon isn't going to abandon the southern strategy just because Wallace performed better in 1968. He's wedded to that plan for better or worse and he's going to find a way to make it work, and even an emboldened George Wallace can be bought for a price.

EDIT: Also, Wallace wasn't interested in creating a third party. He was interested in 1) Power and 2) the Presidency, in that order. He'd have to know that a regional third party was doomed, and in fact he did know that which is why he tried to rehabilitate his image going into 1972 and 1976 so he could run as a national Democrat and not just a southern one.

 

[vultan]

I could see the AIP having a good run, ('68, '72, maybe '76) but I don't know if it could remain a permanent/new major party. It could be like Perot's Reform party, being a major force so long as it's poster boy is running, and it could be like the Bull Moose party where you had people of the party get elected to office elsewhere. However, it seems like America always goes back into the two parties, and so I get the feeling that regardless of that stuff, the people voting AIP, or holding office as AIP, will -as the AIP falls into the background- just go back to supporting the Democrats or Republicans. The American Independent party could be like an incubator for future Republicans, instead of the Dixiecrats going slowly but surely straight into the GOP, but I get the feeling it will only be a major force for so long.

What I meant in my post was that in the short-term it'd be a major party, much as in the immediate aftermath of the 1912 presidential election the Progressives could have been considered a major party.

 

[Plumber]

Wallace chooses Chandler, who does very good in the Upper South. To appease a somewhat disappointed base, Wallace ends up campaigning more in the South than OTL and does much better there.

The result is a hung college, and Humphrey becomes President in the most disputed manner since Rutherford B. Hayes...

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If Wallace manages to get these better results, how does that affect '72? Would it embolden Wallace to run once again against Nixon as a third party (if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination)? And how would it effect Nixon to have his southern strategy fail in '68, with Wallace sewing up the south and those blue collar whites that year?

Wallace doing better in 1968 does not effect his running in the general election in 1972. I am of the opinion that he did not run in the general election because he got shot. Doing better in 1968 will not prevent him from being shot in 1972.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Wallace doing better in 1968 does not effect his running in the general election in 1972. I am of the opinion that he did not run in the general election because he got shot. Doing better in 1968 will not prevent him from being shot in 1972.

Butterflies, my friend. Butterflies.

 

[Whanztastic]

Wallace doing better in 1968 does not effect his running in the general election in 1972. I am of the opinion that he did not run in the general election because he got shot. Doing better in 1968 will not prevent him from being shot in 1972.

It certainly does. Wallace wasn't even Arthur Bremer's first target; he wanted Nixon but couldn't get close enough. There is a lot of potential for AH happenings. And let us not forget the possible changes in the plans of one Samuel Byck.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Wallace chooses Chandler, who does very good in the Upper South. To appease a somewhat disappointed base, Wallace ends up campaigning more in the South than OTL and does much better there.

The result is a hung college, and Humphrey becomes President in the most disputed manner since Rutherford B. Hayes...

What about the comments of Wallace cutting into Humphrey's northern working class support, thus potentially losing Humphrey states to Nixon?

 

[Whanztastic]

What about the comments of Wallace cutting into Humphrey's northern working class support, thus potentially losing Humphrey states to Nixon?

Very possible... most likely states are Texas and Maryland, both less than 2% wins for the Happy Warrior. That is a 35 point spoiler - Wallace could pick up Tennessee, Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia and Kentucky, and Nixon still wins.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I think Wallace hurts Nixon more than Humphrey. c Can someone please explain how Wallace prevents him being shot. bButteflies only happen for a reason. t They are not automatic

 

[Whanztastic]

I think Wallace hurts Nixon more than Humphrey. c Can someone please explain how Wallace prevents him being shot. bButteflies only happen for a reason. t They are not automatic

The amount of coincidences that led Arthur Bremer to be a potential assassain could easily be washed away with an alt-1968 election result.

On May 22, 1971, his one known friend, Thomas Neuman, committed suicide after playing Russian Roulette. If this doesn't happen he probably doesn't snap, at least not as much as he did.

Read his wiki page, it was extremely possible for him to be arrested earlier or commit earlier crimes. He was picked up for concealed carry. A thousand possible events could have happened, for example a fight with a cop or arrested for stalking.

As previously mentioned, his first target was Nixon. A better window of a chance and Bremer is shooting rounds at the POTUS, not some Governor.

Or he could simply miss...

 

[Plumber]

What about the comments of Wallace cutting into Humphrey's northern working class support, thus potentially losing Humphrey states to Nixon?

Humphrey lost Washington and Maryland to Nixon, and almost Pennsylvania and Michigan. Wallace hurt Nixon more in Delaware, Missouri and Texas than Humphrey.