WI: Hubert Humphrey Gets Treatment for Cancer Early?

Hubert Humphrey died of bladder cancer, which went terminal in the late 70s and was one of the reasons he didn't run in 1976. He died in 1978.

Reading over some things, I came across that he started to notice blood in his urine around the 1968 election, but didn't get it check out because he didn't want to hurt his Presidential campaign by undergoing an aggressive medical evaluation. By the time, some 9 years later, that they did finally diagnose it and begin radiation therapy, it was too far advance and Hubert was terminal.

So what if Hubert Humphrey didn't have that trepidation (maybe RFK got the nomination and he didn't have to run, maybe Humphrey isn't VP, whatever else is needed for the scenario) and does get things diagnosed earlier and begins treatment earlier?
 
You meant he did not run for president in 1976. He ran for reelection for the Senate but did not campaign in the fall because he was being treated for cancer. If runs for presdient in 1976, I could see him winning the nomination but I don't know about the general election. Carter's Southern support was vital to his victory. I could see him winning if Reagan wins the nomination in a very bitter struggle that inspires moderate Republicans to stay home. A Humphrey presidency from 1977 to 1981, would have brought the enactment of the Humphrey Hawkins jobs program, a bigger energy program than Carter got. Maybe a health care program. There woudl probably be a hostage crisis and there would be a bad economy in 1980 so he lose for reelection.
 
If he noticed blood in his urine in '68, he could have had it checked out after he lost in Nov. but as previously stated, maybe he was afraid to get it checked out; some people just are.

I was a young adult back then, and closely followed the '76 campaign. Remember, Humphrey had also run in '72, and lost to Mcgovern. No way did he have a chance in '76 with the field as it was. Even without Carter, Humphrey's labour support went to Scoop Jackson. The truth is, that by then, most of the electorate were just plain tired of Humphrey. He'd been around too long. It was suggested that the party bosses might have given him the nod if the convention had been deadlocked, but that never happens any more.
The race was interesting enough as things went. Even after Carter supposedly had it locked up after winning PA, Frank Church came along and took Nebraska, then Gov. Moonbeam won Maryland, and in the end, by some odd rule, CA. went to a combined ticket of Humphrey and Brown. Carter had enough delegates, but the end was still competetive.
 
Humphrey was considered the front-runner going into the 1976 race. Gerald Ford fully expected Humphrey to be his opponent.

If all is well with Humphrey, he runs. And if he runs, he wins. He's got institutional support from labor (Jackson won't run if Humphrey has labor's support from the get-go), liberals (Bayh, Church, and Udall probably won't run), and black voters. The only group he isn't strong with are the professionals/new politics/white liberals, but that ultimately doesn't matter. Humphrey can win the nomination without them and they'll vote for him anyway.
 
So if he was the front runner going into '76, how come he lost so decisively to Mcgovern in '72? He sure wasn't the front runner after Carter started winning states, and I don't remember the press talking about him as if he might be a serious contender, just as a party elder who wouldn't go away. Ditto for George Wallace, albeit for different reasons. Also, Jackson did well in early primaries, so he must have had a good operation in place for a while; he didn't act like he was a Humphrey surrogate, more like his successor for the labour vote.
 
Carter won because HHH did mot run. Carter could have beat him in the South but nowhere else. It might have been a Humphrey Carter ticket.
 
But you keep missing the point that by 1976, Humphrey was pretty much a political has-been. I think he was, to some extent, used up by '72, which is why Mcgovern, as far to the left as he was, beat him. For sure he had outlived his usefulness by '76. I remember seeing polls at the time which showed this. Scoop Jackson wouldn't have been out there if Humphrey had still been the darling of big labour.
 
So if he was the front runner going into '76, how come he lost so decisively to Mcgovern in '72? He sure wasn't the front runner after Carter started winning states, and I don't remember the press talking about him as if he might be a serious contender, just as a party elder who wouldn't go away. Ditto for George Wallace, albeit for different reasons. Also, Jackson did well in early primaries, so he must have had a good operation in place for a while; he didn't act like he was a Humphrey surrogate, more like his successor for the labour vote.

I think you are slightly misunderstanding the dynamics of the 1972 campaign. You could make the argument that McGovern did not crush Humphrey in the primaries. Yes he did not win the nomination so perhaps this is a semantic point about the meaning of the word decisive. As far as second place finishers ate concerned he did fairly well. McGovern, from my reading on the campaign, won for two reasons. One of them was that he had the better organization. During the primaries McGovern ran a good campaign or at least a better one than his opponents. The other reason was Richard Nixon. But then again it has been four years since I studied the campaign so I apologize if I am mistaken. And correct me if I am wrong but by the time Carter was the emerging man to beat was not Humphrey confirmed to be out of the race?
 
McGovern won the nomination, but it was by no means 'decisive'. McGovern and his supporters changed the rules after the '68 election, which made it much harder for labor or the traditional organization to have any influence in the nominating process, thus opening it up to the upper middle class/middle class college students and identity politics groups.

Well, that, and there's the sticky little fact that in spite of all of that, Humphrey actually won the popular vote for the Democratic nomination in '72.
 
Top