First, what treaty was Nixon supposedly sabotaging? People were just finishing arguing over the the shape of the tables they would use. Did LBJ have anything, even an outline of a peace treaty, for the American people? He halted the bombings Oct 31, in an attempt to help HHH. No candidate in 1968 was offering peace at any price; even in 1972, McGovern lost badly. Would the Senators that signed a letter opposing Obama's Iran deal be arrested? Or OTL, when the Mondale campaign talked about meeting with the Soviets? Reagan's team simply stated that "they didn't have a problem with it." Mondale, if elected, would take a radically different approach to the Soviets than Reagan. Enough for treason? When Netanyahu spoke before Congress, was that treason? But there, Congress has its own police force, so who is the traitor? Pelosi
once half-joked she could have arrested Karl Rove. Where does it stop? Also, my gripe about this "Nixon stole the election" is that LBJ wasn't close to any peace deal at all. Here's my take on a how this plays out:
LBJ has Nixon arrested. Eisenhower is too sick to offer support, and privately is disgusted: he thinks LBJ not arresting, but still announcing it via TV would be more proper, rather than a Gestapo feel of arresting opponents. LBJ does give a speech that night, detailing why Nixon was arrested. Nixon is slow to control the narrative, due to the unexpected nature (he expected a dirty trick, but never to be arrested!). This swings enough votes to HHH to get elected, and appoint Abe Fortas as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. The next 3 years are hell for HHH; 5 liberal Justices means civil rights moves forward, but the nation isn't ready for it, especially with the issue of busing African American youth to predominately white schools. Even Ted Kennedy publicly opposes it (OTL he did, but a few years later; liberal court and President should be enough to move it forward). Peace is still not able to reach Vietnam, as the North keeps bleeding American strength. But, any attempt to force South Vietnam to the peace talks is thwarted by war-hawks in Congress, so HHH cannot unilaterally withdraw troops. HHH's problems are compounded when Reagan (OTL ran in 1968 behind the scenes, and 1976 against the President) announces he will run, running against "the leadership in the White House that does not have the moral courage to face rioters and Communist agitators in our cities, to face Communist nations abroad that are set on our final destruction, but simply hides behind Supreme Court decrees that our schools must be overridden with drugs, with violence, merely so Humphrey can sleep guilt free." HHH is pissed off, (he split the Democratic over segregation in 1948), but the nation is not with him. Reagan wins with 68% of the vote, a result foreshadowed during the primaries, when (eh, pick either McGovern or some other dove) on the peace side, and George Wallace on the war side (thinking, if Reagan announces early enough, Wallace realizes they will compete for the same voters, so stays inside the Democratic Party).
Reagan expands the war, moving troops into Cambodia and Laos, claiming that the North Vietnamese moving supplies thru them was justification enough. When war breaks out in the Middle East in 1973 and Israel is threatened, Reagan moves supplies in, but, hearing that the Soviets might land troops, orders Defcon 2 and orders the carrier group off Egypt to attack Egyptian positions. While the CAG admiral didn't, and the order was later rescinded, the Soviets are spooked enough to back down, and start cutting supplies to North Vietnam in addition to helping mediate a ceasefire in the ME. China doesn't want to abandon N. Vietnam, and sees a chance to score points against the USSR for being "ideologically impure," but a few weeks later, when a Reagan official publicly states on a Sunday talk show, that "exchanging 10 million Japanese for 50 million Chinese, isn't that bad" the Chinese agree with the Soviets that a man who actively seeks nuclear war is leading the US, and cut off aid to Vietnam. North Vietnam stands alone. A peace treaty (basically stating the borders are the same, and no one will interfere in another's internal affairs) is signed a few month's later; seemingly humiliating for N Vietnam, but the border is porous, and corruption in Saigon leads to social unrest. Reagan announces his intention to have 50,000 modern nuclear warheads by the end of the decade, to match Soviet projected numbers. He also vetoes a universal healthcare act sponsored by Ted Kennedy (OTL, Ted sank it), decrying it as an unwarranted attack personal freedoms. As the 1976 election nears, reagan has seemilny brought peace to South East Asia (until the US leaves), defended the only democracy in the Middle East from extermination, and forced the Soviets to back down. And 1976 is the US's bicentennial... Reagan loves him some pomp and circumstance. Sure, the US military is beyond over stretched, with any funding increase eaten by increases in nuclear bombs, and not funding replacement parts and supplies. And NATO is hanging by a thread- is Vietnam worth risking Western Europe?