WI: Goldwater/Romney 1964

To believe certain sources that have come up in light of the 2012 election, George Romney was less puritanical than the popular view has held of him. Among the points of that view, Romney didn't actually walk out of the 1964 convention, which was a myth crafted later, and fully supported Goldwater, and his later lack of support was purely one of politics. That is to say, he saw the support wasn't there after investigating if it was, and immediately played to the base unscrupulously, and playing to the base without scruples was what was characteristic. In this way, the popular idea of the father as a great man and the son (Mitt Romney) as not being one is countered with the idea that the son is the way that George Romney himself was.

Taking this viewpoint, what if George Romney ran with Barry Goldwater in 1964?
 
Taking this viewpoint, what if George Romney ran with Barry Goldwater in 1964?

Hard to imagine large-scale consequences either way; obviously Goldwater-Romney is still going to lose in a landslide in '64. Romney will be better prepared to run a national campaign in '68 (and you've probably butterflied away the -- IMO, unfair -- 'brainwashed' gaffe), but it's hard to see him beating Nixon even with more of a head start.
 
Would more dealings with the national press corps train him so well he does not make the brainwashed gaffe?
 
Last edited:
The question is why a first-term governor with presidential aspirations would agree to be on a Goldwater ticket that was obviously headed for defeat? Romney is only on the ticket if Goldwater is much more concilatory towards his moderate-to-liberal Republican opposition after winning the nomination, and the GOP moderates talk Romney into accepting a second spot on the ticket with promises of support for the ticket.

Under those circumstances, a Goldwater-Romney ticket still loses but not in a crushing landslide defeat as in OTL. Romney goes back into the private sector, runs for Governor of Michigan again in 1966 (after sitting out the 1964 race to run with Goldwater) and likely wins in that GOP year.

Romney seeks the 1968 Republican presidential nomination as a nationally-known and much more seasoned--and less gaffe prone--candidate. Conservatives aren't wild about him, but Romney was a good-soldier in 1964 so they can live with him. Although he probably can't beat Nixon, Romney stays in the race and inherits much of the moderate-to-liberal GOP support that otherwise might go to Nelson Rockfeller. ITTL, Nixon seriously considers this more formible Romney as his running mate choice in 1968.
 
The question is why a first-term governor with presidential aspirations would agree to be on a Goldwater ticket that was obviously headed for defeat? Romney is only on the ticket if Goldwater is much more concilatory towards his moderate-to-liberal Republican opposition after winning the nomination, and the GOP moderates talk Romney into accepting a second spot on the ticket with promises of support for the ticket.

Under those circumstances, a Goldwater-Romney ticket still loses but not in a crushing landslide defeat as in OTL. Romney goes back into the private sector, runs for Governor of Michigan again in 1966 (after sitting out the 1964 race to run with Goldwater) and likely wins in that GOP year.

Romney seeks the 1968 Republican presidential nomination as a nationally-known and much more seasoned--and less gaffe prone--candidate. Conservatives aren't wild about him, but Romney was a good-soldier in 1964 so they can live with him. Although he probably can't beat Nixon, Romney stays in the race and inherits much of the moderate-to-liberal GOP support that otherwise might go to Nelson Rockfeller. ITTL, Nixon seriously considers this more formible Romney as his running mate choice in 1968.

...leading to Romney becoming president in 1974 after Nixon's resignation (I doubt he'd change that much, but let's a assume we still have a Watergate).
 
Goldwater/Romney would be a great ticket in '68, '72 or maybe even in '76 if Nixon's eliminated from all three elections, but in '64, Johnson's strong enough all he has to do is try to see how WIDE a margin he can win by.
 
The trend of the discussion seems to be towards this helping Romney. I'll propose the opposite possibility: that it will end up hurting Romney. Either possibility may be valid, but I'll go with that idea, and I believe there is a very strong argument for it.

Romney will be running with a ticket destined to lose, and destined to lose hard. Goldwater will be smeared based on things he said or extrapolations of things he's said and done exploited for campaign commercials and campaign literature, just as he was in the actual election. Romney has a very strong possibility of also being stained by running with Goldwater in such a situation. Although you could make the argument that Romney would be able to survive attacks on Goldwater, or that Romney would give a legitimacy to stave off those attacks. At the same time, Johnson could also direct attacks against Romney that would scar him for the remainder of his political life.

Romney will also have a strong prospect to lose legitimacy with and of being of the Rockefeller wing, in part at least, by running with the figure and faction the Rockefeller wing rebuked and perhaps could be said to revile. And those Conservatives in turn booed Rockefeller and molested Ike's niece on the convention floor. The scathing attacks on Goldwater in the election of 1964 came not just from Johnson, but came from the Moderate to Liberal Republicans and leading figures like Rockefeller and Scranton. LBJ didn't invent things out of the blue; he utilized an existing framework of dissatisfaction and a preexisting list of grievances, along with things Goldwater was already known for and thought of as.
Unless he can sell it as a ticket of unity instead of one where he's going along with the Rockefeller's anti-Christ, there is the strong prospect for it to be damaging. Taking into account the vitriolic ideological conflict that was 1964 for the Republican party, I don't know if he could. In OTL 1968, Romney had the benefit (initially) of having Rockefeller's blessing and backing, and being like Rockefeller-Lite. He'd likely not have that blessing in this 1968, possibly suffer from Rockefeller getting into the race from the get go, and would have legitimacy issues with the Rockefeller label.

There's been mention of 1964 being a chance for Romney to work out the kinks and get better acquainted with national media and stop being such a gaffer, therefore going into 1968 strong. I don't know how much water that holds. There is a very strong chance for Romney to gaffe on the campaign trail. 1964 is too early for the brainwashing gaffe, given he hasn't yet been by the generals, nor is Vietnam really an American war to be brainwashed about, let alone be rejected after years of soul searching. However, there is a strong likelihood for something. Getting out there may not strengthen him politically. It may make the public and/or the party view him as a problematic gaffer and a political paper tiger: someone who looks perfect on paper (the only man Jack Kennedy worried about running against in 1964), but in practice fails, or at least is perceived to fail.

And in 1964, Goldwater is going to lose and will do so by a crippling number. That does not seem to set up Romney well for 1968. He could be considered the initial front runner, but it seems like he'd have the prospect of strongly losing ground as things became less nebulous and you had a field of candidates come into play.
 
Emperor Norton I: So essentially, you're hypothesizing that Romney, by running with Goldwater in '64, turns into the liberal Republican equivalent of Joe Lieberman.

I think this view has much to commend it; Lieberman was probably the most hated Democrat among the far-left from 2004 to today, even though objectively he was to the left of Senators like Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and Claire McCaskill who all enjoyed some support from those ranks. (Lieberman is also to the left of well-known conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor who are also rather unpopular with the far left.)

Had Lieberman not run with Al Gore in 2000 (and endorsed McCain in '08), it's hard to imagine he would have become the lightning rod for liberal outrage.
 
Out side of FDR(1920) what losing VEEP candidate ever became President? Romney Senior has no chance at being President if he runs with Goldwalter.
 
Had Lieberman not run with Al Gore in 2000 (and endorsed McCain in '08), it's hard to imagine he would have become the lightning rod for liberal outrage.
There's more reasons than just those two that Democrats dislike him.
- In general, he was a war hawk during a period in which Democrats mostly tried to appeal to the anti-war vote.
- He ran as an independent for his Senate seat in 2006 when he lost the Democratic primary.

I remember while campaigning for Obama, the entire room I was in agreed universally that Lieberman was awful. Was a little surprised, even though I knew he was unpopular.
 
Emperor Norton I: So essentially, you're hypothesizing that Romney, by running with Goldwater in '64, turns into the liberal Republican equivalent of Joe Lieberman.

I think this view has much to commend it; Lieberman was probably the most hated Democrat among the far-left from 2004 to today, even though objectively he was to the left of Senators like Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and Claire McCaskill who all enjoyed some support from those ranks. (Lieberman is also to the left of well-known conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor who are also rather unpopular with the far left.)

Had Lieberman not run with Al Gore in 2000 (and endorsed McCain in '08), it's hard to imagine he would have become the lightning rod for liberal outrage.

Somewhat, though I don't believe Romney would have gone over to be the "Uncle Tom" for the Conservatives as Lieberman seems to be for the Republican party after 2000. It may be valid though. Who knows: no one covers George Romney, any biographies on him are largely from his era when biographies were very, very shallow and never probed the soul or motivations or any deeper details of a person and frequently towed the PR line, and any more recent history books or biographies cite those shallow biographies.

Out side of FDR(1920) what losing VEEP candidate ever became President? Romney Senior has no chance at being President if he runs with Goldwalter.

A lack of precedent does not equate with a lack of prospect.
 
There's more reasons than just those two that Democrats dislike him.

Oh, there are plenty of good reasons to dislike ol' Vinegar Joe, I'm just pointing out that the dislike seems to fall on him rather disproportionately, given that his overall voting record is (slightly) to the left of, say, Claire McCaskill (whom netroots Dems seem to love).

- In general, he was a war hawk during a period in which Democrats mostly tried to appeal to the anti-war vote.

True, but hardly unique; John freakin' Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and he was the party's nominee in 2004. Hillary Clinton voted for the "surge." Mark Pryor and Evan Bayh compiled just as hawkish a voting record as Lieberman, and yet they don't seem to suffer the same dislike. So it's sort of interesting to ask why.

- He ran as an independent for his Senate seat in 2006 when he lost the Democratic primary.

That's an effect, not a cause; Lieberman ran as an independent because he was successfully primaried by a far-left netroots-backed opponent.

Anyway, I just think Emperor Norton I has come up with kind of a neat (if, as he points out, untestable and unprovable) hypothesis, and I was looking to see if there's a modern analogue, even if the analogy isn't perfect.
 
Top