President Richard Millhouse Nixon was an intensely paranoid man, who feared losing re-election. His fear, paranoia, and desperation were so great, he committed crimes that would emerge as part of the Watergate Scandal that ended his presidency.
In ‘72, he won 49/50 states IOTL against McGovern, a weak candidate running a messy campaign that Nixon was very successful at sabotaging. He played a great many dirty tricks, including causing Edmund Muskie to tumble in the polls with attacks on his wife. Muskie, a very reserved and serious man, came off as extremely emotional, which hurt his image. It seemed as if he was crying while delivering his response, although he maintained it was because it was snowing.
But, what if that hadn’t happened? If Muskie was telling the truth about snow, what if he had delivered his response in the lobby of a nearby building? Or under an umbrella?
I’m trying to make the POD as small as possible, but I also want the focus to be on the general. I’ll outline a path for Muskie to get the nomination and leave that open for exploration.
I went really long with talking about Muskie in the primaries, so here it is as a spoiler:
Muskie is declared the nominee on the 2nd round of voting and I think his running mate would either be Wilbur Mills or Walter Mondale. Mills is more fun and pairs nicely in geographic terms and in public perception. The Most Powerful Man in Washington and the Man From Maine would be a great duo to challenge Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Maybe George Wallace staged a walk out and is running for POTUS as a Dixiecrat.
How could they win? What would Muskie be like as POTUS? Could Muskie win while losing the popular vote? That last one would drive Nixon insane.
In ‘72, he won 49/50 states IOTL against McGovern, a weak candidate running a messy campaign that Nixon was very successful at sabotaging. He played a great many dirty tricks, including causing Edmund Muskie to tumble in the polls with attacks on his wife. Muskie, a very reserved and serious man, came off as extremely emotional, which hurt his image. It seemed as if he was crying while delivering his response, although he maintained it was because it was snowing.
But, what if that hadn’t happened? If Muskie was telling the truth about snow, what if he had delivered his response in the lobby of a nearby building? Or under an umbrella?
I’m trying to make the POD as small as possible, but I also want the focus to be on the general. I’ll outline a path for Muskie to get the nomination and leave that open for exploration.
I went really long with talking about Muskie in the primaries, so here it is as a spoiler:
Muskie was ahead in the polls at that time and I want to maintain that without shifting too much. IOTL Muskie won in New Hampshire, Illinois, Arizona, and Maine, which proves that he could win in the Midwest and the West, having appeal beyond his home region if New England.
Since the PoD is at the end of February, butterflies will be chugging along and could start having significant results by the beginning of March, if we assume that Muskie stays strong in the polls.
If Muskie wins in New Hampshire and other early races by larger margins than IOTL and maintain a healthy lead in the polls. He could establish himself as the clear frontrunner and stave off a challenge from the McGovern campaign. Instead of winning 46.4% of the vote, Muskie wins a massive 66.4% of the vote, taking if it from McGovern who only received 17.15% of the vote.
Although McGovern gains some momentum as the only person to challenge Muskie in New England, he doesn’t gain nearly as much. Muskie, with his resounding victory, would probably go on to take Humphrey’s place as the only person to gain any delegates from Florida besides George Wallace. Wallace received 41.6% as IOTL, but now Muskie received 18.5% and Humphrey receives 8.9%. With Muskie having positioned himself as a strong frontrunner for the nomination and with the momentum of the New Hampshire win and the showing in Florida, he would do better in Illinois. IOTL he won 62.6%, but what if he won 67.6% and McCarthy won 31.26%, 5 points less than IOTL. Small change, but it is a supermajority and this, combined with his home state or Maine endorsing him, could really help Muskie in Wisconsin in April.
Wisconsin is where his campaign really started to weaken. Here are the IOTL results:
McGovern 29.55%
Wallace 22.03%
Humphrey 20.71%
Muskie 10.26%
Jackson 7.8%
These are bad numbers. Even if you knock 5% off of McGovern, Humphrey, and Wallace and gave it all to Muskie, you still get:
Muskie 25.26%
McGovern 24.55%
Wallace 17.03%
Humphrey 15.71%
Jackson 7.8%
That’s a win, but the win of somebody very vulnerable. I think that with McGovern not taking off like IOTL, we can knock him down another ten points, but I would split that between Muskie and Humphrey, who is from neighboring Minnesota.
Muskie 30.26%
Humphrey 20.71%
Wallace 17.03%
McGovern 14.55%
Jackson 7.8%
With Muskie winning by about 10% of the vote over Humphrey, the primary would become a Muskie-Humphrey horse race. Unfortunate, looking back at ‘68. I’m sure neither man would be comfortable running against one another after having been on the same ticket, but they’d really be the only standouts barring another dark horse swooping in like McGovern nearly did ITTL. McGovern, McCarthy, Jackson, Mills, and Wallace would all essentially be the spoiler candidates in the national race, but they could still pose a threat state by state.
Three weeks after Wisconsin voted, it would be Massachusetts and Pennsylvania’s turns. McGovern (narrowly) didn’t even get enough voted to receive delegates in Wisconsin. There is no way he would win a majority in MA ITTL, but he might still do well. In real life, he was very popular in Mass.
I think his ceiling would be about 20%, with the 30% taken from McGovern and mainly going to Muskie but with a lot of votes also going to perennial candidates. I think the people of Mass would be begrudging to support Muskie, the establishment-backed frontrunner and, in a year where they picked a dark horse IOTL, they would scatter their votes.
OTL
McGovern 50.65%
Muskie 21.29%
Humphrey 7.91%
Wallace 7.41%
Chisholm 3.62%
Mills 3.14%
ATL
Muskie 36.29% +15%
Humphrey 21.91% +4%
McGovern 20.65% -30%
Wallace 11.41% +4%
Chisholm 7.62% +4%
Mills 5.14% +3%
In PA, Humphrey won with about as strong of a lead as Muskie in MA, with Wallace, McGovern, and Muskie basically tying for 2nd place. ITTL, without McGovern as a major force, I think Humphrey would win with about 40%, Muskie in second place with 25%, Wallace in third with OTL 21.27% and McGovern trailing with 10.43%. This would make the race competitive again between Muskie and Humphrey, with two establishment candidates fighting it out, they do risk upsets. I fear that, the further you get into the primary, the less likely it is for McGovern or McCarthy to surge as a challenger and more likely for Wallace or Jackson, but mainly Wallace. If he could get a decent showing in PA like he did OTL and TTL, then he could amass enough delegates to make an impression at the DNC.
With his OTL near assassination and paralysis being butterflied, Wallace would arrive at the convention with hundreds of delegates and could stage a walk out and run third party like in ‘68, but more in the style of Strom Thurmond in ‘48.
IMO, PA and MA would be the last results comparable to OTL and I don’t think any other specific race has to be dived into.
The month of May would not be great for Muskie, where a lot of states were in the South and populist parts of the Midwest. With the establishment divided, Wallace gained six states. Humphrey and Muskie each only won two, with both of Muskie’s wins happening at the end of the month.
Muskie
AZ
NH
IL
WI
MA
ME
VT
OR
RI
Humphrey
MN
PA
OH
NE
Wallace
FL
IN
TN
NV
WV
MD
MI
McGovern
ID
Jackson
WA
Fauntroy
D.C.
The last primaries that were actual primaries were in California and New Mexico. With a win in OR and the politics Muskie had, I think winning in CA would be a near guarantee. Only question would be how much of a fight Humphrey put up. If it’s less than a 10-point difference, then they will be taking their fight to the convention, as New Mexico is definitely going to split pretty evenly. From there, it’s a matter of wheeling, dealing, and keeping your eyes on the polls.
I think in this situation, Humphrey would likely drop out or take a deal to support Muskie. He’d make a great Secretary of State after all.
Since the PoD is at the end of February, butterflies will be chugging along and could start having significant results by the beginning of March, if we assume that Muskie stays strong in the polls.
If Muskie wins in New Hampshire and other early races by larger margins than IOTL and maintain a healthy lead in the polls. He could establish himself as the clear frontrunner and stave off a challenge from the McGovern campaign. Instead of winning 46.4% of the vote, Muskie wins a massive 66.4% of the vote, taking if it from McGovern who only received 17.15% of the vote.
Although McGovern gains some momentum as the only person to challenge Muskie in New England, he doesn’t gain nearly as much. Muskie, with his resounding victory, would probably go on to take Humphrey’s place as the only person to gain any delegates from Florida besides George Wallace. Wallace received 41.6% as IOTL, but now Muskie received 18.5% and Humphrey receives 8.9%. With Muskie having positioned himself as a strong frontrunner for the nomination and with the momentum of the New Hampshire win and the showing in Florida, he would do better in Illinois. IOTL he won 62.6%, but what if he won 67.6% and McCarthy won 31.26%, 5 points less than IOTL. Small change, but it is a supermajority and this, combined with his home state or Maine endorsing him, could really help Muskie in Wisconsin in April.
Wisconsin is where his campaign really started to weaken. Here are the IOTL results:
McGovern 29.55%
Wallace 22.03%
Humphrey 20.71%
Muskie 10.26%
Jackson 7.8%
These are bad numbers. Even if you knock 5% off of McGovern, Humphrey, and Wallace and gave it all to Muskie, you still get:
Muskie 25.26%
McGovern 24.55%
Wallace 17.03%
Humphrey 15.71%
Jackson 7.8%
That’s a win, but the win of somebody very vulnerable. I think that with McGovern not taking off like IOTL, we can knock him down another ten points, but I would split that between Muskie and Humphrey, who is from neighboring Minnesota.
Muskie 30.26%
Humphrey 20.71%
Wallace 17.03%
McGovern 14.55%
Jackson 7.8%
With Muskie winning by about 10% of the vote over Humphrey, the primary would become a Muskie-Humphrey horse race. Unfortunate, looking back at ‘68. I’m sure neither man would be comfortable running against one another after having been on the same ticket, but they’d really be the only standouts barring another dark horse swooping in like McGovern nearly did ITTL. McGovern, McCarthy, Jackson, Mills, and Wallace would all essentially be the spoiler candidates in the national race, but they could still pose a threat state by state.
Three weeks after Wisconsin voted, it would be Massachusetts and Pennsylvania’s turns. McGovern (narrowly) didn’t even get enough voted to receive delegates in Wisconsin. There is no way he would win a majority in MA ITTL, but he might still do well. In real life, he was very popular in Mass.
I think his ceiling would be about 20%, with the 30% taken from McGovern and mainly going to Muskie but with a lot of votes also going to perennial candidates. I think the people of Mass would be begrudging to support Muskie, the establishment-backed frontrunner and, in a year where they picked a dark horse IOTL, they would scatter their votes.
OTL
McGovern 50.65%
Muskie 21.29%
Humphrey 7.91%
Wallace 7.41%
Chisholm 3.62%
Mills 3.14%
ATL
Muskie 36.29% +15%
Humphrey 21.91% +4%
McGovern 20.65% -30%
Wallace 11.41% +4%
Chisholm 7.62% +4%
Mills 5.14% +3%
In PA, Humphrey won with about as strong of a lead as Muskie in MA, with Wallace, McGovern, and Muskie basically tying for 2nd place. ITTL, without McGovern as a major force, I think Humphrey would win with about 40%, Muskie in second place with 25%, Wallace in third with OTL 21.27% and McGovern trailing with 10.43%. This would make the race competitive again between Muskie and Humphrey, with two establishment candidates fighting it out, they do risk upsets. I fear that, the further you get into the primary, the less likely it is for McGovern or McCarthy to surge as a challenger and more likely for Wallace or Jackson, but mainly Wallace. If he could get a decent showing in PA like he did OTL and TTL, then he could amass enough delegates to make an impression at the DNC.
With his OTL near assassination and paralysis being butterflied, Wallace would arrive at the convention with hundreds of delegates and could stage a walk out and run third party like in ‘68, but more in the style of Strom Thurmond in ‘48.
IMO, PA and MA would be the last results comparable to OTL and I don’t think any other specific race has to be dived into.
The month of May would not be great for Muskie, where a lot of states were in the South and populist parts of the Midwest. With the establishment divided, Wallace gained six states. Humphrey and Muskie each only won two, with both of Muskie’s wins happening at the end of the month.
Muskie
AZ
NH
IL
WI
MA
ME
VT
OR
RI
Humphrey
MN
PA
OH
NE
Wallace
FL
IN
TN
NV
WV
MD
MI
McGovern
ID
Jackson
WA
Fauntroy
D.C.
The last primaries that were actual primaries were in California and New Mexico. With a win in OR and the politics Muskie had, I think winning in CA would be a near guarantee. Only question would be how much of a fight Humphrey put up. If it’s less than a 10-point difference, then they will be taking their fight to the convention, as New Mexico is definitely going to split pretty evenly. From there, it’s a matter of wheeling, dealing, and keeping your eyes on the polls.
I think in this situation, Humphrey would likely drop out or take a deal to support Muskie. He’d make a great Secretary of State after all.
Muskie is declared the nominee on the 2nd round of voting and I think his running mate would either be Wilbur Mills or Walter Mondale. Mills is more fun and pairs nicely in geographic terms and in public perception. The Most Powerful Man in Washington and the Man From Maine would be a great duo to challenge Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Maybe George Wallace staged a walk out and is running for POTUS as a Dixiecrat.
How could they win? What would Muskie be like as POTUS? Could Muskie win while losing the popular vote? That last one would drive Nixon insane.
Last edited: