What if LBJ decided to run for a second term? Would he win? If he did how different would he deal with ending Vietnam?
WI: LBJ goes for a second term
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
He actually did run, but almost lost in NH. This showed that he was extremely vulnerable and unpopular even within his own party. Once Kennedy jumped into the race, it became clear that parts of the Democratic establishment itself were turning on LBJ and at that point he gave up and withdrew. He never really wanted to run for a second term in the first place, and at several points in the lead up to NH he prepared to announce his withdrawal before backing out at the last minute. The early primaries were simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
If Johnson's continues his campaign anyway, he'd lose. Polling before the primaries showed that Kennedy had a razor-thin lead over Johnson. As the primaries continue and Democrats realize that RFK is more nationally electable than LBJ, that lead is going to increase while Johnson loses primary after primary. It's worth noting that Kennedy's OTL path to the nomination was so difficult because he was up against Humphrey, who like LBJ was acceptable to many establishment figures but unlike the President he was directly associated with the war so he was acceptable to many liberals as well.
If Johnson's continues his campaign anyway, he'd lose. Polling before the primaries showed that Kennedy had a razor-thin lead over Johnson. As the primaries continue and Democrats realize that RFK is more nationally electable than LBJ, that lead is going to increase while Johnson loses primary after primary. It's worth noting that Kennedy's OTL path to the nomination was so difficult because he was up against Humphrey, who like LBJ was acceptable to many establishment figures but unlike the President he was directly associated with the war so he was acceptable to many liberals as well.
I read an article about this from an insider who said Johnson polled well against any opponent and dropped out when he felt he was going out on his own terms. So with that in mind...
He wins. The problem was that, given his personal life and Vietnam, he didn’t have the stomach for a second term. If he could have done better in Vietnam or followed JFK’s scaling down of the war, he might have been more up for it. It’s about the only thing that could have made LBJ not decide he had enough of being President.
Equally fascinating would be if Lee Harvey Oswald never got the chance to shoot JFK. JFK presumably gets re-elected, and if he dies of Addison’s late in his second term, we can assume LBJ runs in 1968. He secures peace in Vietnam (I would gather he wouldn’t fall for Nixon’s shit in sabotaging the agreements) and decides in 1972 he’s had enough.
Not sure who wins in 1972, but it’s probably someone from the GOP. The “Southern strategy” may also never happen, given that Nixon goes away for good and I’m not sure if anyone else would go for it. A splintered South would be interesting - my guess is that it splinters urban-rural after a while.
He wins. The problem was that, given his personal life and Vietnam, he didn’t have the stomach for a second term. If he could have done better in Vietnam or followed JFK’s scaling down of the war, he might have been more up for it. It’s about the only thing that could have made LBJ not decide he had enough of being President.
Equally fascinating would be if Lee Harvey Oswald never got the chance to shoot JFK. JFK presumably gets re-elected, and if he dies of Addison’s late in his second term, we can assume LBJ runs in 1968. He secures peace in Vietnam (I would gather he wouldn’t fall for Nixon’s shit in sabotaging the agreements) and decides in 1972 he’s had enough.
Not sure who wins in 1972, but it’s probably someone from the GOP. The “Southern strategy” may also never happen, given that Nixon goes away for good and I’m not sure if anyone else would go for it. A splintered South would be interesting - my guess is that it splinters urban-rural after a while.
Nixon easily would have destroyed him in what could be an inverse of 1964. Nixon can paint Johnson as the embodiment of the war and disorder, while as I noted above Humphrey could at least distance himself from those things somewhat and instead run on the strength of the labor vote. Humphrey didn't even crack 43% of the vote, and LBJ would almost certainly do even worse a la Goldwater's vote total in '64.
This is hilarious. Johnson would NOT have losed to Nixon by Goldwater levels barring a full mental breakdown. Opposition to Vietnam was not universal, and being the sitting president overseeing the war practically guarantees the pro-Vietnam vote. Plus, a number of people would vote for him again just based on the fact that he is the sitting president and that they voted for him four years ago.
On top of that, acting like Humphrey’s 43% was extremely low in a three person race where he was 1% behind Nixon is extremely misleading. Humphrey just needed things to go slightly better to win. You think Johnson wouldn’t pull some dirty tricks? It’s pretty widely believed he cheated his way into his first Senate seat, his re-election campaign would probably be on par with Nixon in the tricks department, especially in retaliation to Nixon.
Not saying he’d win in a landslide, unless he nails Tricky Dick with proof of trying to sabotage Vietnam Peace Talks. If that happens, he wins in another extreme landslide.
Apparently Johnson considered accepting the nomination at the 1968 DNC (Richard Daley assured him that there were enough delegates loyal to him), but decided it would be too dangerous to travel to Chicago. Though, I imagine that would exacerbate divisions within the Democratic Party even more than OTL.
LBJ would eke out a narrow victory over Nixon, after the dirtiest campaign in history [1] then drop dead halfway through his term; giving us President Humphrey.
[1] for example, This Guy would be in charge of certifying the Illinois election results...
[1] for example, This Guy would be in charge of certifying the Illinois election results...
Last edited:
Firstly, a majority of Americans opposed the Vietnam War after Tet, and by May 1968 56% of Americans supported withdrawal according to Gallup. Also, LBJ had an average approval rating of 40% around this time, only 1.5% greater than Goldwater's vote total in 1964.
Also, while Johnson was a "dirty" politician dirty tricks can only get you so far. That Senate race was extremely close to begin with, dirty tricks only just barely pushed Johnson over the edge. That isn't likely to help in a race where Nixon OTL lead the sitting VP by 15% in September (again according to Gallup). It's also important to note for the sake of argument that many considered HHH to be Johnson's stand in, which is why large numbers of liberals (who up to that point loved Humphrey for his work on civil rights) turned their backs and didn't vote for him. Humphrey only caught up with Nixon because of McCarthy's endorsement and the October surprise of peace talks breaking through, before collapsing again.
As for nailing Nixon on the Peace Talks, it was actually Johnson himself who refused to reveal this to the public, as it would have revealed to the South Vietnamese government that they were under illegal US wiretaps. Johnson did pass this info onto Humphrey, but HHH made the exact same decision while he was running behind Nixon.
Last edited:
Why would LBJ do much worse than Humphrey, anyway? It's not like Humphrey was different on the Vietnam issue... I mean, he pretty much would have continued what LBJ was doing. He was literally his Vice President.
It's hard to get LBJ blown out though, because at this time, party ID is still D+14 nationally, both him and Humphrey have a high floor this cycle. Chicago still goes bad on the outside, but on the inside of the arena, the party would have quickly folded behind Johnson. Johnson would still be able to use the anti-Wallace, anti-racism playbook that Humphrey used to steal back votes and gain momentum in October. LBJ is almost going to certainly leak the information about Nixon -- so it would blow on the networks the week of the election and you'd have your October surprise. Yes, wire tapping the South Vietnamese government isn't going to look great, but it's going to go over much, much better than sabotaging peace plans.
Also, Humphrey went with the President on an issue while he was the Vice President, that doesn't make him a cowardly hack, that makes him every vice president. Bush went along with supply side economics for Reagan, LBJ thought almost nothing of Kennedy as a leader, even Biden and Obama disagreed on a fair number of things. Especially when you consider that Vietnam was an escalating series of crisis events, and not a 0 troops to 150,000 troops overnight kind of deal, Humphrey can disagree with the policy, without thinking it's evil, or being a hack. Also, Hiding one's true feelings on Vietnam for a while isn't remotely what it means to "play dirty" on a campaign.
Not saying LBJ is cruising to victory, but he's not going to get blown out either and this will be a brutal campaign that motivates people to the polls based on anger/fear.
I concede that I went overboard in characterizing Humphrey (and I've since deleted that aspect of the post which I admit was uncalled for and I apologize), however I ultimately was trying to convey that both HHH and LBJ made the exact same decision when it came to dealing with Nixon. So there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that LBJ would have acted differently were he on a Presidential ticket. If anything, he was even less likely to leak the news than Humphrey. Why? He was so devoted to Vietnam that political considerations always came second. He knew from the get go that America would lose that war and it would destroy his Presidency, but he went in anyway because he was too proud to disengage. That same thought process kept him from taking off the gloves when dealing with Nixon in 1968 as the outgoing President, I see no reason to believe he would have acted differently in this TL.
Further, I've seen no evidence that LBJ would have a stronger base of support than Humphrey, who already had a united party establishment and he still lost. The tangible evidence shows LBJ was widely unpopular and so were his policies. Even when LBJ gave his 1968 State of the Union, Congress clapped only once - while he talked about cracking down on crime. If even a Democratic Congress - where Johnson was at home - was that cold to him there's no way he wins in 1968.
very time someone acts like a jerk here on AH.com, a baby sealion cries. Please don't make baby sealions cry.
I’ll mostly ignore that first little bit, even though i really, REALLY don’t want to, so I’ll just ask you this: do you think I am writing scholarly essays that I come kver to make sure every detail is perfect or typing at my phone with no spell check on?
Incumbency, popularity, name recognition, voter loyalty, all of these are things that, well, exist and make an impact on voting habits.
Johnson’s much more likely to leak something catastrophic like Nixon’s peace talk sabotage to help himself over helping his VP, even if I don’t think that it’s anything bear a sure thing.
Also, maybe it’s just my personal view of McCarthy being a fringe oddball who bordered on talking gibberish, but I doubt his endorsement was THAT big of a factor for the Humphrey Campaign. The guy said he’d appoint mostly Republicans and then outwardly turned towards being a hardcore libertarian later. He was really out there.
He wouldn't do much worse, but he'd get a somewhat lower vote total somewhere around his approval rating of 40%. Obviously not much lower than HHH, but not much greater than Goldwater either (what I was referring to in my earlier comparison. Not that he would get the exact same result, but something similar in the popular vote). Incumbents have done worse, think of Bush 41 in 1992 for example. That was a similar race between a Democrat, Republican, and Independent who drew votes away from both parties. LBJ would do better than Bush (better politician after all), but still lose.
As for why he'd be less popular than Humphrey, he was the political face of a now very unpopular war because, well, he was in charge of it after all and (whether rightly or wrongly, that's a totally different debate) he was blamed for it too. Humphrey in contrast wasn't (in fact he didn't have a very high profile at all as VP, that definitely helped his Presidential chances) and he could get away with running as "Democratic candidate Humphrey" instead of "Vice-President Humphrey." Humphrey had a strong liberal record before 1965 and since he wasn't responsible for the bad things under Johnson, he could distance himself from them at least superficially. (Obviously that didn't really work out as hardcore anti-war Dems associated him with LBJ and stayed home). As Chief Exec LBJ obviously wouldn't be able to do any of that. For better or worse, voters expect the President to assume responsibility for all the nation's problems. If things get better in four years, they credit the President and reelect him (hopefully someday "her," as well), but if things get worse they blame the President and kick him out. In 1968 America as tearing itself apart over the war, race relations, civil unrest, and many blamed the President. It's extremely difficult, almost impossible, to get reelected under that circumstance. Johnson was a master politician, but not a superhuman.
Also, I will say that if President Benedict Arnold is that offended by my response, I apologize to both him and moderator CalBear. In response to him calling my post "hilarious," I should not have gone for a low blow and it was wrong for me to do so. I should have done the best thing and just ignored it, and I did not realize at the time that my response was really that harsh. It detracted from the informed debate we should be having about this alternate history scenario, not bickering. I won't try to make an excuse for it because there is no point.
Last edited:
Again, I feel the need to reiterate that my response was unfair and uncalled for. I was way too emotionally invested in somehow "upping the ante" against what you said. I've since edited the post to reflect what I should have said if ego didn't get the better of me, but obviously that doesn't really undo the damage done and again, I apologize. In truth, I generally appreciate your posts and views here on this forum, but even if that weren't true I admit that I was wrong to deal out a low blow.