WI: Hubert Humphrey doesn't get cancer

What if in the 1970s former Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey doesn't get (and die of) terminal cancer? The biggest question of course is does he run for president for the fourth time in 1976? If he does what are his chances of winning the Democratic nomination and defeating President Ford? What would a healthy Humphrey's presidency look like in the late 1970s (and possibly early 1980s)?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Probably not; after '72 it was clear HHH's time in the sun was entering Twilight, and I have more than an inkling he'd throw support behind Carter.

If he did run, however, it's likely he'll be a compromise candidate for the Anti-Carter Movement. Unlike Muskie, who was just... Muskie, Humphrey had a degree of support in the Democrats, and could accommodate Carter as his Running Mate need be. I'm not sure how he'll go against Ford, though it's likely he'll be the same as Carter in this regard, although Ford might just be able to edge him out when it comes down to the wire.
 
I think this is a pretty promising POD. Hubert Humphrey was born May 27, 1911. So, when he died in January 1978, he was still a relatively young man.

In Jules Witcover's Marathon about the '76 election, Hubert is briefly discussed. I think he was even quoted that he just didn't have the energy. Maybe he was already sick to some extent.
 
In the 1980 presidential election:

Ronald Reagan 50.7 %
Jimmy Carter 41.0 %
John Anderson 6.6 %

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1980

Now, 41% is a substantial defeat for an incumbent president. But is 51% for Reagan a landslide ? ? But it was sure often portrayed that way, in large part because it translated to such a big electoral college victory.

So, another interesting POD . . .

Hubert Humphrey stays in the Senate during the Reagan years:

Such big economic factors leading to the decline of middle-class jobs, I'm not sure one more voice would make that much of a difference. And with Reagan supporting the military regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, and the right-wing rebel army in Nicaragua, I think he was as mistaken as can be. But in a sense, such policies were over-determined. Ever since the Cold War started in 1945, we pretty much propped up every military dictatorship we could find, as long as they could mouth the words they were anti-communists. And this was both Democratic and Republican administrations. And following the Iranian hostage crisis, there was a lot of currency to being 'touch.' And so, Humphrey being one more voice, no matter how well he can distill down the issue, no matter what kind of down home examples he can use, no matter what facts he can accurately point to, not sure it would make that much of a difference.

Okay, so what effect might Hubert have:

(1) Maybe the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which had at least some bipartisan support, such as Democratic Senator Bill Bradley who advocated the view of fewer loopholes, lower rates. Maybe it could be a bigger improvement.

(2) And Immigration Reform, I think around '86(?), too. Maybe it could have just worked much better, or maybe that's expecting the man to be too prescient, too influential. But let's take a flight of fancy and suppose it does.
 
Last edited:
Top