Goldwater was reluctant to run in 1964, but conservatives convinced him to enter the race. While Goldwater upset Rockefeller in the primaries, he lost to LBJ in a landslide. Still, Goldwater's candidacy laid the groundwork for the modern GOP. What might've happened had Goldwater not run in 1964?
 
Nelson Rockefeller wins the nomination in 1964, but ultimately loses to Johnson. Come 1968, the conservative wings of the GOP backs Ronald Reagan. Reagan, lacking the controversies of the nonexistent 1964 Goldwater campaign, win the nomination. However he is painted as an extremist like Goldwater was in OTL and loses to Hubert Humphrey.
 
Nixon is the GOP's statesman in 1980 since Reagan failed miserably in 1968 and 1972 while Goldwater didn't even win any states in 1976.
 
Nelson Rockefeller wins the nomination in 1964, but ultimately loses to Johnson. Come 1968, the conservative wings of the GOP backs Ronald Reagan. Reagan, lacking the controversies of the nonexistent 1964 Goldwater campaign, win the nomination. However he is painted as an extremist like Goldwater was in OTL and loses to Hubert Humphrey.

If Rockefeller is nominated, then Wallace likely goes third party. How well would Wallace do in this scenario? Certainly not as well as 1968, due to LBJ's support in the South.

Speaking of 1968: if Goldwater doesn't run in 1964, then why wouldn't he run in 1968?
 
Everyone is overlooking Bill Scranton: what's to prevent him from getting the nomination? He checks a lot of boxes: relatively young; appealing to a lot of voters; middle of the road; no baggage; similar in a number of ways to Kennedy in stances. A Scranton nomination may well not prevent Lyndon Johnson from getting a term in his own right, but it won't be a walkover as it was IOTL, and could just be relatively close-run.

Then, there's no surge of the right in the GOP. Nixon and Rockefeller battle it out in '68 with (my guess) Rockefeller getting the nod. Wallace goes 3rd party and wins a few southern states. Rockefeller wins narrowly over Humphrey...and makes Nixon Secretary of State.
 
Everyone is overlooking Bill Scranton: what's to prevent him from getting the nomination? He checks a lot of boxes: relatively young; appealing to a lot of voters; middle of the road; no baggage; similar in a number of ways to Kennedy in stances. A Scranton nomination may well not prevent Lyndon Johnson from getting a term in his own right, but it won't be a walkover as it was IOTL, and could just be relatively close-run.

Then, there's no surge of the right in the GOP. Nixon and Rockefeller battle it out in '68 with (my guess) Rockefeller getting the nod. Wallace goes 3rd party and wins a few southern states. Rockefeller wins narrowly over Humphrey...and makes Nixon Secretary of State.

I think Scranton would only get nominated as a compromise candidate. He probably does better than Goldwater, but still loses in a landslide.

As for 1968, I think Rockefeller would only have a chance of if he loses the nomination in '64. If he is nominated but loses in a landslide to LBJ, his chance of becoming POTUS are nil. But without Goldwater, Rockefeller is probably nominated in 1964. If he even does try again in '68, then I think Nixon beats him
 
Goldwater's mention of nukes was a factor in making the landslide so big. So, if the GOP candidate is more civil, LBJ would still win, but you still had "straight ticket" voting in those years. That's where voters could vote for all Democrats or all Republicans with a single ballot check (or lever as they still used voting machines then). It could affect the congress and senate.
 
Goldwater's mention of nukes was a factor in making the landslide so big. So, if the GOP candidate is more civil, LBJ would still win, but you still had "straight ticket" voting in those years. That's where voters could vote for all Democrats or all Republicans with a single ballot check (or lever as they still used voting machines then). It could affect the congress and senate.

Republicans don't lose as many seats, but they still lose seats nonetheless.
 
I'm not sure that Rockefeller would win the nomination sans Goldwater. He'd certainly do better (and probably win the California primary), but remember that Lodge beat him in New Hampshire despite not even actively running. Rockefeller was so tainted by his divorce and remarriage that even many Northeastern moderates like Prescott Bush opposed him. In OTL the moderates tried to coalesce around Pennsylvania Bill Scranton as a compromise candidate. This might actually happen if Goldwater doesn't run. Here's my idea of an electoral map with LBJ running against a moderate Republican like Scranton, and with Wallace running as a third party candidate:

Johnson v Scranton v Wallace.png
 
I'm not sure that Rockefeller would win the nomination sans Goldwater.

Could well be Nixon. He came fourth in the New Hampshire primary, but quite a respectable fourth (abt 15,000 write-in votes iirc though he never campaigned there. With Goldwater out he could well get most of the latter's votes, and could go on from there to win later primaries.

He would lose badly to LBJ, as would any Republican that year, so would be out of the picture for 1968. Would a Rockefeller-Reagan ticket be possible? It was much talked about at the time, and even graced the cover of a TIME magazine that I bought.
 
It might butterfly away the rise of Ronald Reagan as a national conservative figure as he made a great speech for Goldwater in the campaign, without it and the Republicans nominating a more moderate candidate could keep him on the sidlines.
Before that he was known for making anti Medicare recordings for the AMA that basically doctor's wives would play for their neighbors.
 
It might butterfly away the rise of Ronald Reagan as a national conservative figure as he made a great speech for Goldwater in the campaign, without it and the Republicans nominating a more moderate candidate could keep him on the sidlines.
Before that he was known for making anti Medicare recordings for the AMA that basically doctor's wives would play for their neighbors.

The speech was made in October, after Goldwater had won the nomination. If the GOP nominates a moderate, I could see Reagan still speaking out for the Republicans - but perhaps with a less hardline tone. In fact Reagan's future political positions may end up being different if he doesn't run for Governor in 1966 as a Goldwaterite.
 
If Rockefeller is the nominee you’ll get Wallace as a third party. Wallace wins the Goldwater southern states (give or take a few), Rockefeller probably wins Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, and maybe Oklahoma (could go either way to all candidates). Rockefeller would do significantly better with the popular vote but still lose to Johnson.
 
Goldwater stays in Congress and votes for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, thus infuriating segregationists and ensuring that the Dixiecrats abandon the idea of a Goldwater candidacy. Goldwater thus has positions that alienate literally every constituency, and even if he runs in 1968, he's not getting the nomination. With Dixiecrats not migrating to the Republican Party because of Goldwater, they instead create their own third party that holds sway in the South for a few decades. Thus, the political landscape is center-left Democrats, center-rignt Republicans, and a hard-right segregationist party that is only electorally successful in the Deep South.
 
Top