WI Edmund "Pat" Brown decides not to run for a third term?

PoD: early 1966

After the Watts riots and their aftermath, California governor Edmund "Pat" Brown decides not to seek a third term as California governor.

Effects, anyone?
 
PoD: early 1966

After the Watts riots and their aftermath, California governor Edmund "Pat" Brown decides not to seek a third term as California governor.

Effects, anyone?
None really, IMHO. Reagan still likely gets elected Governor.
 
Whoever the Democrats nominates loses to the GOP candidate, probably Reagan. (I say "probably" because in OTL one reason Reagan was nominated was that Pat Brown leaked unfavorable information about San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, because he thought Christopher would be harder to beat than the actor and "extremist" Reagan.) 1966 was definitely going to a be a bad year for Democrats in California, not just for Pat Brown. In fact, Robert Finch defeated Lieutenant Governor Glenn Anderson even more overwhelmingly than Reagan defeated Brown: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=360745
 
PoD: early 1966

After the Watts riots and their aftermath, California governor Edmund "Pat" Brown decides not to seek a third term as California governor.

Effects, anyone?

Even if the Democrats still lose in 1966, Brown's overall reputation would be better without his loss to Reagan.
 
Even if the Democrats still lose in 1966, Brown's overall reputation would be better without his loss to Reagan.

I doubt it. Everyone would know that the GOP victory in California in 1966 was a repudiation of Brown, whether he was running or not. Just as we all know that 1920, 1952, and 2008 indicated the unpopularity of Wilson, Truman, and GW Bush, even though none of them was on the ballot in those years.
 
Top