WI: Goldwater defeats Johnson 1964 election

Would World War 3 have followed or could he maybe have surpriced everyone and ended the cold war peacefully insteed?
 
Would World War 3 have followed or could he maybe have surpriced everyone and ended the cold war peacefully insteed?

Johnson was going to crush Goldwater. In OTL, it was a 22.6 percent margin of victory, with Johnson taking 61.1 percent of the popular vote and 90.5% of the popular vote. Johnson's margin of victory in percentage points is the 5th largest in US history, and as an absolute percent it is the largest number in American history. Now, admitidly, Johnson specifically chose to go for a landslide against Goldwater. But Johnson can run a relativly passive campaign and still have a respectable margin of victory. Among other things, Goldwater lacked much of base outside of conservatives, and in the 1960s that was not enough to win an election. Many viewed him as an extremist, which proved to be a powerful tool for LBJ during the election. Finally, former President Eisenhower (the only serving republican president since Hoover at the time) and Governors Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney, among other republican notables, refused to publically support him, which cost him a lot of support.

What about a TL where JFK hadn't been killed? Could Goldwater have defeated him?

This has been debated on here a few times, usually as a spinoff of timelines which involve JFK surviving. The general consensus, as I recall, is that Kennedy wins, although by a smaller margin then Johnson did (although the difference would still be respectable).
 
As has been said, you need a major, major POD (or even several) for Goldwater to defeat LBJ in 64. In addition to the points already posted, the JFK death effect was also a strong factor. Goldwater himself stated 3 Presidents in 12 months was hard to image.

BUT, since this is ALT History...
The only way, assuming no POD till the actually 64 campaign;
1. RFK splits the party, We know RFK never liled or trusted LBJ, someincident (either private or public) cause the final break in 64, vice 65 drives him to run against LBJ or at least hold back his support. (Very unlikely, this is still the age of party loyalty, RFK does this and he better win or start his own party afterwards).
2. LBJ's Real life story come out. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, the media was in lock step with LBJ in 64 and even if they where, there still the ghost of JFK looming.
 
Throw in wholehearted support of Goldwater by the republican grandees, a gaffe or two by Johnson, a more moderate image of Goldwater in the public eye, and Johnson reading the OTL indicators and not take the election to seriously to Douglas's scenario, and Goldwater may win.
 
Throw in wholehearted support of Goldwater by the republican grandees, a gaffe or two by Johnson, a more moderate image of Goldwater in the public eye, and Johnson reading the OTL indicators and not take the election to seriously to Douglas's scenario, and Goldwater may win.

A less favorable outcome of Cuban missile crisis? Could that have given Goldwater his victory?
 
A less favorable outcome of Cuban missile crisis? Could that have given Goldwater his victory?

Define less favorable. If, for instance, you mean a global thermonuclear war, which would involve a signifigant degree of damage to the US and the anhiallation of the USSR and much of Europe, then I thnk we get a completly different chain of events. For example, the next president is probably McCormack (I believe he was vacationing at the time, while Kennedy and Jonson are in Washington, which would become ground zero were te missiles to launch).

However, you still run into a number of problems. Honestly, Goldwater had several major problems in the OTL campaign, and you would need some POD that would nullify several of them while maintaining the basic structure of that universe. So the Cuban missile crisis, while a potential POD, creates a storm of butterflies which change the election further. Finally, there is the sympathy for Kennedy, which will always be a signifigant factor in the '64 elections.

Although as President, I wonder how much damage Goldwater could actually do. The Democrats had a 68 to 32 majority in the Senate (enough to override a fillibuster) and a 295-140 majority in the House during the 89th congress. While Goldwater might have some coattails, Congress is going to be solidly opposed to him no matter the outcome of the presidential race (for the record, in the 88th congress, the democrates had 63 and 259 seats in both houses). while his relativly extreme and right-wing actions will allienate him. He probably becomes an ineffective one-term president.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think it rather simple, no Republican could win in 1964, but if they had a chance, they wouldn't have had Goldwater as their candidate. So the simple answer is that Goldwater was simply to radical at the time to win against any realistic Democratic candidate.
 
Yeah Goldwater winning is close to impossible. I mean he has a marginally better chance against JFK, but mostly that just means it'll be closer.

I do know there were several polls in '63 that showed Goldwater ahead of JFK…*but that was well before people knew Goldwater.

One interesting side effect is the idea of debates is ingrained in the American political scene as JFK & Goldwater had agreed to a series of major policy debates in various cities around the US.


So if JFK lives and both his illness and infidelity are revealed…*perhaps Goldwater running a better campaign with a popular VP candidate can eke out a victory.

But yeah, unlikely.

If Goldwater was President? Hard to know. Civil Rights is dead for a few years, the military should get some shiny new toys, no Great Society (of course) and perhaps he can roll back social security a little. But overall I imagine a US with a hardline anti-communist stance, new guns, and as limited as possible an increase in spending (probably the JFK/Johnson middle class tax cut, plus some program cuts to aim for a balanced budget).

As for Viet Nam? Depends if Goldwater believes in the Domino Theory and so sees it as part of the anti-communist struggle or if he sees it as some two-bit country that Americans don't need to die for.

The Cold War should be pretty chilly, and of course no Nixon/China moment.
 
As for Viet Nam? Depends if Goldwater believes in the Domino Theory and so sees it as part of the anti-communist struggle or if he sees it as some two-bit country that Americans don't need to die for.

I believe the famous Daisy Girl ad was brought on by a comment of Goldwater's advocating the expenditure of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam (it may have been about a question asked about how Goldwater would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis; memory fails me). He would have escalated in Vietnam, either way.
 
I believe the famous Daisy Girl ad was brought on by a comment of Goldwater's advocating the expenditure of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam (it may have been about a question asked about how Goldwater would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis; memory fails me). He would have escalated in Vietnam, either way.

History.com:

Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to "take the war to North Vietnam," it should withdraw. Although Goldwater discussed the possibility of using low-yield nuclear weapons to defoliate infiltration routes in Vietnam, he never actually advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the North Vietnamese.

So basically withdraw, or win the war and stop pussyfooting around. Sounds about right for Goldwater.
 
Top