WI: LBJ Withdraws Before the 1968 Primaries

[Amadeus]

By 1967, LBJ didn't want to run for a second term. He was growing increasingly unpopular, his Great Society programs were stalling in Congress, and his health was on the decline. So he planned on announcing he would step down in his 1968 State of the Union Address. But he didn't want to be a lame duck for his final year in office, so he scrapped the idea and kept his re-election campaign going. Ultimately Johnson withdrew from the race after almost losing the New Hampshire primary to Eugene McCarthy.

But what if LBJ had announced in January 1968 that he wouldn't run for re-election? How does this impact the 1968 race?

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/16/opinion/behind-lbj-s-decision-not-to-run-in-68.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ot-to-seek-reelection/?utm_term=.2731fa3ae8e1

 

[SandroPertini98]

RFK becomes the anti-war candidate instead McCarthy and could do very well against Humphrey but at the end he will be again assassinated, right?

 

[mianfei]

This is a very interesting one, actually. If LBJ had announced he was not running before the Democratic Party primaries began, then there would have been much less rushed campaigns for the nomination and for the election itself. That would – at least one hopes – have given the candidates more time to campaign before and during the primaries. It would also have potentially given more candidates time to announce their candidacies, so we might have the possibility of a “dark horse” who did not actually run at all being nominates.

 

[Amadeus]

RFK becomes the anti-war candidate instead McCarthy and could do very well against Humphrey but at the end he will be again assassinated, right?

Actually McCarthy had already announced his campaign in the fall of '67. RFK probably still runs. But here, he'd be starting about two months earlier. (LBJ's State of the Union was on 1/17/1968). He has a good chance of winning NH, and perhaps Wisconsin as well. This could have a serious impact on his assassination. RFK was killed because his staff made a split second decision to have him enter a ballroom not through the main hallway but through a tight kitchen where he was separated from his bodyguard, giving Sirhan Sirhan an opening to kill him. They made the decision because the campaign, which had started late and was falling behind Humphrey in delegates, was rushing itself to make deadlines. So they thought that taking a "shortcut" through the kitchen would be needed to get Kennedy to the ballroom quicker. Big mistake.

In this ATL June 1968, RFK probably still wins California. But the entire mood of his campaign is likely altered, as RFK has a two month headstart and a greater number of delegates than OTL. If the campaign isn't worried about getting to the ballroom, then it's less likely they make the random decision to take him through the hotel kitchen. Perhaps Kennedy would still have been killed in the main ballroom or later in another building, but with his bodyguard protecting him it's much less likely he is killed.

So this ATL 1968 is still a McCarthy-Kennedy-Humphrey race, but the outcome is surely more favorable to Kennedy, even if he loses the nomination.

 

[Amadeus]

This is a very interesting one, actually. If LBJ had announced he was not running before the Democratic Party primaries began, then there would have been much less rushed campaigns for the nomination and for the election itself. That would – at least one hopes – have given the candidates more time to campaign before and during the primaries. It would also have potentially given more candidates time to announce their candidacies, so we might have the possibility of a “dark horse” who did not actually run at all being nominates.

I think Humphrey was too strong in delegates to be thwarted by a compromise candidate (Unless that compromise candidate was RFK, who wouldn't qualify as a "dark horse").

 

[Tammany Tiger]

It's worth noting that Hubert Humphrey did not contest the primaries and instead rely on big-city bosses, labor leaders, and southern governors to collect convention delegates. (There were only 14 primary states in 1968, many of them in low-population states.) Humphrey's strategy obviously worked, and some experts believe it would have worked even if RFK had not been assassinated. LBJ's announcement that he wouldn't run came after several primaries had taken place, and probably after the filing deadline for a number of others, so Humphrey had an excuse for not entering them.

By the way, the 1968 Democratic Convention was held the last week in August because LBJ's birthday was August 27 and he wanted the event to be his birthday party. That decision came back to haunt the Democrats, who didn't have sufficient time to heal the wounds of the primary campaign and the convention.

 

[Amadeus]

It's worth noting that Hubert Humphrey did not contest the primaries and instead rely on big-city bosses, labor leaders, and southern governors to collect convention delegates. (There were only 14 primary states in 1968, many of them in low-population states.) Humphrey's strategy obviously worked, and some experts believe it would have worked even if RFK had not been assassinated. LBJ's announcement that he wouldn't run came after several primaries had taken place, and probably after the filing deadline for a number of others, so Humphrey had an excuse for not entering them.

Might Humphrey enter the primaries in this ATL? If so, how well would he do?

 

[Electric Monk]

Might Humphrey enter the primaries in this ATL? If so, how well would he do?

As I see it, yes. ITTL with LBJ out earlier he’ll face a ton of pressure to enter to show he can win votes, especially because RFK is going to come off looking better than OTL.

Outlook good. That said he’ll pick a couple he can win and call it a day.

 

[Amadeus]

As I see it, yes. ITTL with LBJ out earlier he’ll face a ton of pressure to enter to show he can win votes, especially because RFK is going to come off looking better than OTL.

Outlook good. That said he’ll pick a couple he can win and call it a day.

I think Kennedy would win more primaries, but Humphrey would still have more support from the Democratic machine. McCarthy still poses a problem for Kennedy, as the anti-war vote is split between the two. Humphrey probably takes the nomination, albiet narrowly, and this makes for a bitterly divided party. Nixon is still favored to win.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

HHH has a much smoother time getting the nomination and soundly defeats Reagan* in november.

* Nixon isn't stupid. He won't run if the democrats are picking someone a clear winner. You get him jumping back into things in '72/'76/'80 depending on how HHH's term(s) go.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . * Nixon isn't stupid. He won't run if the democrats are picking someone a clear winner. . .

but honest to gosh, I think Nixon was comfortably leading after the ‘68 conventions. And the gap closed more than it was expected to.

 

[Amadeus]

but honest to gosh, I think Nixon was comfortably leading after the ‘68 conventions. And the gap closed more than it was expected to.

And in 1968, Humphrey looked quite beatable. He would still look beatable in January 1968. So Nixon runs, and there's just as strong a chance he is nominated by the GOP. If RFK is still alive thanks to butterflies, then Humphrey might do a bit better. But unless Kennedy is his running mate, or aggressively campaigns for HHH across the country (neither of which I find likely, given the animosity between the two men), Nixon still wins.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

With less division in democrats hhh imo looks much less beatable. Doubly so with RFK's assasination butterflied out.

 

[President Benedict Arnold]

And in 1968, Humphrey looked quite beatable. He would still look beatable in January 1968. So Nixon runs, and there's just as strong a chance he is nominated by the GOP. If RFK is still alive thanks to butterflies, then Humphrey might do a bit better. But unless Kennedy is his running mate, or aggressively campaigns for HHH across the country (neither of which I find likely, given the animosity between the two men), Nixon still wins.

What animosity was there between Humphrey and Kennedy? It’s my understanding that all the way up to the assassination Humphrey acknowledged RFK as a friend and said he much preferred Bobby to McCarthy because the two of them “understood each other.”

 

[Amadeus]

With less division in democrats hhh imo looks much less beatable. Doubly so with RFK's assasination butterflied out.

Firstly, as of January 1968 McCarthy is in the race and Kennedy is even more so expected to run. So the Dems are still divided, and with the incumbent out of the way earlier 1968 is an even better opportunity for Nixon to run. Secondly, RFK wasn't killed until June 1968 - well after Nixon had not only announced his campaign but had become the presumptive GOP candidate. Thirdly, you're ignoring the fundamentals that so weakened the Democrats in 1968: the war was failing, urban chaos was terrifying voters, and there was a growing conservative backlash against 1960's liberalism. This is what caused the 1966 Republican resurgence, in which Nixon played a vital role. All of these factors, none of which would be changed by the POD, would still make 1968 ripe for Nixon's return.

What animosity was there between Humphrey and Kennedy? It’s my understanding that all the way up to the assassination Humphrey acknowledged RFK as a friend and said he much preferred Bobby to McCarthy because the two of them “understood each other.”

Humphrey resented Kennedy for his role in his 1960 primary defeat, and to my knowledge RFK disliked Humphrey personally. However, if you have a source that points to the contrary I'll be glad to read it.

 

[ejpsan]

The situation with the Democrats is very complicated, while you did not need to compete in the Primaries to get enough delegates to win the nomination, you do have to show the party bosses that you had some support from the voters.
In 1960 JFK had to run in the Primaries to show that people would vote for him even through he was a Catholic, if JFK lost in contested Primaries in either Wisconsin or West Virginia his campaign was basically over and the Kennedy campaign was very concerned that Symington would beat Kennedy in Indiana, Maryland, or Nebraska.
In 1968 the big four contests would have been Wisconsin where both Humphrey and McCarthy were from next door Minnesota and RFK ran his brother's winning campaign in 1960, Indiana, Oregon, and California.
Both Kennedy and McCarthy had to run the table and win everything while Humphrey had to at least win one of them and finished no lower then second in the others or he would have shown that he had little support from the voters.

 

[Amadeus]

Both Kennedy and McCarthy had to run the table and win everything while Humphrey had to at least win one of them and finished no lower then second in the others or he would have shown that he had little support from the voters.

Kennedy, being a northeasterner, would probably win New Hampshire. He probably wins California by a narrow margin as in OTL, as well as Nebraska. McCarthy could still win Oregon. But I'm less sure of Wisconsin and Indiana. Humphrey could perform strongly there thanks to his union support and Midwestern roots, but all the same he's still hated by the liberal base and his association with an unpopular incumbent won't help. RFK would lack Humphrey's behind the scenes support, but he still has his personal popularity and his stances on the issues would be more tenable to the Democratic base.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . In 1968 the big four contests would have been Wisconsin where both Humphrey and McCarthy were from next door Minnesota . . .

It is kind of amazing that they were both from Minnesota.

Humphrey was the former Senator, current VP, as well as future Senator. And Eugene McCarthy was elected to the Senate in ‘58 and ‘64.

 

[Amadeus]

It is kind of amazing that they were both from Minnesota.

Humphrey was the former Senator, current VP, as well as future Senator. And Eugene McCarthy was elected to the Senate in ‘58 and ‘64.

Ironically Humphrey was elected to McCarthy's Senate seat when the latter retired in 1970.