WI: Muskie beat Nixon in ‘72

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 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.

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:
One POD for this one would be not having Ken Clawson ( the guy who wrote the infamous Canuck Letter which effectively destroyed Muskie) being hired by the White House for the re-election team.
 
You either get Muskie reelectedin '76 followed by Reagan/Connally/Bush in '80 or Reagan/Connally in '76 with an uphill 1980 or things get to an even leftier variant of AH.com's "democratic revolution in 1980s and 1990s".
 
First, go with MOndale - I just Wiki'd Mills and he had to retire after a sex scandal. Maybe Mills and Humphrey are promised high positions in the cabinet, and Humphrey can endorse MOndale and thus Muskie, not wanting to be VP under a 2nd President.

Watergate could break as a news story earlier. While McGoverning does a great job of this, Muskie would have a much better chance of winning. Still, it might be better if smoething bad happens with Nixon's re-election campaign.

Does Wallace still get shot? If he does, the South can possibly go Muskie though Nixon would try hard to get the Southern states, if he isn't, and Nixon gets shot at instead, even if he doesn't shoot Nixon there's still the bounce Nixon would get out of sympathy. So, I don't know what to say there.
 
Ken Clawson, the writer of the Canuck Letter, was dumb enough to brag about forging a letter to sink Muskie's candidacy; he talked about it with Marilyn Berger, a friend of his and a reporter for the Washington Post. When Clawson was confronted about it, he apparently begged for it not to be revealed, as the fact that he was having drinks alone with Marilyn Berger at her apartment when he was telling her about this would ruin his marriage. For whatever reason, his role in the Canuck Letter was never revealed by the Washington Post in their 1972 article on the subject.

But let's say that someone within the Washington Post realizes how glaringly, obviously, huge and important a story is that an employee of the Committee to Re-Elect the President forged documents to damage the President's political opponents, presumably on the President's orders. Maybe Carl Bernstein and/or Bob Woodward get a hold of it. A full Canuck Letter expose by the Washington Post could be an early version of Watergate that sinks Nixon and gets Muskie elected.
 
One POD for this one would be not having Ken Clawson ( the guy who wrote the infamous Canuck Letter which effectively destroyed Muskie) being hired by the White House for the re-election team.
First, go with MOndale - I just Wiki'd Mills and he had to retire after a sex scandal. Maybe Mills and Humphrey are promised high positions in the cabinet, and Humphrey can endorse MOndale and thus Muskie, not wanting to be VP under a 2nd President.

Watergate could break as a news story earlier. While McGoverning does a great job of this, Muskie would have a much better chance of winning. Still, it might be better if smoething bad happens with Nixon's re-election campaign.

Does Wallace still get shot? If he does, the South can possibly go Muskie though Nixon would try hard to get the Southern states, if he isn't, and Nixon gets shot at instead, even if he doesn't shoot Nixon there's still the bounce Nixon would get out of sympathy. So, I don't know what to say there.

Perhaps he does a poorer job at putting the letter together and the controversy around it points to wrongdoing from the Nixon camp. Another possibility is the entire campaign plan not being stolen. This happened in late '71, but the entire outlined plan for the campaign from Fall '71 to Spring '72 was taken by the Nixon camp and its loss seems to have been pretty bad for the Muskie camp in general (seems as though they didn't have very many copies). If that didn't happen, that could more broadly improve his entire campaign. Maybe, if a Nixon-connected person is caught stealing it, then a Watergate-esque scandal could unfold before the primary even begins. This could cause a Republican to primary Nixon and damage him publicly and, if impeachment is being considered, then Nixon could lose in a landslide in the general.

But honestly, I'd want a smaller PoD. With Muskie having to chug along in a primary battle with Humphrey and Wallace remaining enough of a nuisance to make another general election run, Muskie would start out as the underdog and him beating Nixon would be a surprise. If Nixon is being considered for impeachment and Muskie is winning every primary race, then where is the fun in that?

Even though Wallace came from the Democrats, he'd hurt Nixon a lot more in the general. What if Wallace causes enough vote-splitting that Muskie wins the election while losing the popular vote?

I'm thinking something like
Muskie 44.0% 277
Nixon 45.0% 216
Wallace 11.0% 45 (AL, MS, GA, and FL)

Walter Mondale was a great choice for Vice-President for the Southern Gov. Jimmy Carter, but would that also be true for Senator Muskie? If he is the VP pick, it might be seen as the Democrats abandoning the South after Humphrey chose Muskie. Two races in a row with no Southern candidate ITTL could see Southern Democrats permanently splinter between Republicans, Democrats, and Independent third-parties. Either way, Mondale would be a strong and well-rounded pick for VP in '72. By the time he gets into office, he is tied to a POTUS overseeing an economy that could use improvement, a war that could use ending, and a transformative period in US history where a friend to labor unions in the White House would be very effective. If Muskie made it without the popular vote, his approval ratings would almost certainly start out pretty low, but could recover by '76.

You either get Muskie reelectedin '76 followed by Reagan/Connally/Bush in '80 or Reagan/Connally in '76 with an uphill 1980 or things get to an even leftier variant of AH.com's "democratic revolution in 1980s and 1990s".

Can't see Bush ever winning the presidency like this. He never held statewide office before and IMO, the fact that he was able to ascend to the office IOTL is an incredible fluke among the greater turnings of the world.

Connally was incredibly interesting as a figure and would be interesting against Edmund Muskie. He'd absolutely crush Muskie in the South.

I'm thinking that, in '76, even a President Edmund Muskie who lost the popular vote and oversaw the end of Vietnam and the handover of Panama could still win. Reagan would be the choice for the Republicans and in '76 would be very easy to paint as somewhere between George Wallace and Barry Goldwater. That smear would be even more effective if Wallace opts out of running that year (even if it would be worse for Reagan if he did run). Muskie would have a record to taught, even if the simple fact he lost among the people in '72 would always weigh him down.

I think Muskie would narrowly win re-election. Probably something like:
Muskie 51.5% 277
Reagan 48.5% 253

Plus or minus a popular vote point and plus or minus 20 Electoral College votes (though it'd be very funny for Muskie to win the presidency twice with the same number of EC votes). Turnout would probably go up a bit rather than down just from the type of people that Reagan magnetized into politics.

Two narrow victories keeping the Democrats in the White House throughout the '70s would mean that change is really in the air by 1980.

Ken Clawson, the writer of the Canuck Letter, was dumb enough to brag about forging a letter to sink Muskie's candidacy; he talked about it with Marilyn Berger, a friend of his and a reporter for the Washington Post. Clawson was confronted about it, he apparently begged for it not to be revealed, because it would ruin his marriage that he was having drinks alone with Marilyn Berger at her apartment when he was telling her about this. For whatever reason, his role in the Canuck Letter was never revealed by the Washington Post in their 1972 article on the subject.

But let's say that someone within the Washington Post realizes how glaringly, obviously, huge and important a story is that an employee of the Committee to Re-Elect the President forged documents to damage the President's political opponents, presumably on the President's orders. Maybe Carl Bernstein and/or Bob Woodward get a hold of it. A full Canuck Letter expose by the Washington Post could be an early version of Watergate that sinks Nixon and gets Muskie elected.

Huh, well in that case the early-Watergate idea I typed a bit about is a lot more likely than I thought and could absolutely give Muskie a strong win in '72. Even if Nixon won the popular vote, as more information came out (Dems may pursue full trial or make a show of pardoning Nixon for political points), his career would be over.
 
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 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.

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.

Muskie could've been nominated but I don't think he would've beaten Nixon. Muskie would've kept it closer for sure. But Nixon was popular enough to be re-elected thanks to the economic recovery, China trip, and Kissinger's "peace is at hand" October Surprise.

That said, in the long run the Democrats would be better off without being associated with McGovern's disastrous candidacy.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
Unless that smoking gun tape somehow gets leaked to the press before the election, Richard Milhous Nixon will be reelected. Nixon was popular and incumbent presidents usually are reelected.
 
Muskie losing by a decent margin in 1972 would still shift things. No McGovern campaign could mean more economically and socially liberal in many ways democrats, while being less far less "woke" than OTL -- no clintonite triangulation followed by late 00s to 2010s shift towards being "left" on issues that are proftiable for business. Less prude dems without the Clinton-Gore/DLC types attracting moralistic suburban/exurban types, too so better culture: no PMRC, no censorship-enabling section 230, etc.
 
What about picking Jackson for VP? He was a strong anti-Communist and opposed forced busing, making the ticket more amenable to Wallace. Even if Wallace does run, Jackson on the ticket would blunt his appeal to all but the most racist of Southerners.
 
Muskie could've been nominated but I don't think he would've beaten Nixon. Muskie would've kept it closer for sure. But Nixon was popular enough to be re-elected thanks to the economic recovery, China trip, and Kissinger's "peace is at hand" October Surprise.

That said, in the long run the Democrats would be better off without being associated with McGovern's disastrous candidacy.

IMO, Nixon was trapped in a self-defeating prophecy. He was terrified of losing and was willing to commit crimes to hurt his competitors and was also willing to do whatever he needed to cover up those crimes, with this being what brought down his real life presidency. His paranoia was severe and would always make him vulnerable IMO.

Unless that smoking gun tape somehow gets leaked to the press before the election, Richard Milhous Nixon will be reelected. Nixon was popular and incumbent presidents usually are reelected.

A lot of opportunities for that being discussed here.

Muskie losing by a decent margin in 1972 would still shift things. No McGovern campaign could mean more economically and socially liberal in many ways democrats, while being less far less "woke" than OTL -- no clintonite triangulation followed by late 00s to 2010s shift towards being "left" on issues that are proftiable for business. Less prude dems without the Clinton-Gore/DLC types attracting moralistic suburban/exurban types, too so better culture: no PMRC, no censorship-enabling section 230, etc.

Muskie being either the nominee or president would butterfly party ideology shifts 20+ years later but that doesn’t mean the replacement is better.

What about picking Jackson for VP? He was a strong anti-Communist and opposed forced busing, making the ticket more amenable to Wallace. Even if Wallace does run, Jackson on the ticket would blunt his appeal to all but the most racist of Southerners.

Would Muskie risk an ideological opponent as VP? The unfortunate fate of Kennedy is still very recent and any VP would have to be somebody that everybody was ok with having as POTUS. I don’t think Jackson would be that.
 
Would Muskie risk an ideological opponent as VP? The unfortunate fate of Kennedy is still very recent and any VP would have to be somebody that everybody was ok with having as POTUS. I don’t think Jackson would be that.

I think that Jackson would unite the party and give you the best shot at beating Nixon (perhaps the only chance you have), but definitely it might be risky.
 
In the "Canuck Letter Exposed" Timeline, Frank Church could make a good running mate for Muskie. He would offer geographic balance, and is noted as a supporter of government transparency,
something that would be resonant with an early Watergate equivilant. If Muskie/Church sticks to its guns on civil rights and Wallace splits the party, then an American Independent ticket would probably hurt Nixon more than them.

If a timeline were to be made out of it, I would call it "That CREEP in Maine."
 
It should also be noted that following Nixon's resignation, both Clawson and Ziegler would never again work in government or journalism for the remainder of their lives. They probably both paid a high price for Watergate.
 
In the "Canuck Letter Exposed" Timeline, Frank Church could make a good running mate for Muskie. He would offer geographic balance, and is noted as a supporter of government transparency,
something that would be resonant with an early Watergate equivilant. If Muskie/Church sticks to its guns on civil rights and Wallace splits the party, then an American Independent ticket would probably hurt Nixon more than them.

If a timeline were to be made out of it, I would call it "That CREEP in Maine."
Sounds like a good idea for a TL! Come up with something good and how the Canuck Letter gets exposed early and saves Muskie's career and ruins Clawson's and Nixon's careers.
 
Top