WI: Nixon/Brooke 68?

What if, during the 1968 election cycle, Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew's illegal activities became publicized enough to warrant his being dropped from the Republican ticket; and was then replaced by Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke? This is a highly unlikely scenario, admittedly, for a few reasons. First and foremost being, that Brooke was an African-American...which could've been a big gamble as far as electoral politics were concerned. Secondly, Brooke was quite obviously a liberal Republican in a time when the GOP is putting its "southern strategy" into play, which could cause significant conflict for the ticket (especially given that Agnew was seen as playing to the conservative wing in defense of this strategy). And finally, Brooke had only been in the Senate for one year at that point, making him all the more a questionable choice. However, Brooke also had a reputation as a man who fought corruption in government, which might help offset the stench of Agnew's corruption.

But, let's assume that for whatever reason, Nixon settles on Edward Brooke as his replacement VP for 1968. Does this help the ticket, or hurt it? Could it throw the election to Humphrey, or cause a deadlock in the Electoral College?
 
Picking Brooke would destroy Nixon's New Republican coalition and his Southern Strategy. Strom Thurmond had a veto on the VP slot which is why Agnew was ultimately chosen. There's no way that such a virulent racist would allow for Brooke to be on the ticket.
 
Picking Brooke would destroy Nixon's New Republican coalition and his Southern Strategy. Strom Thurmond had a veto on the VP slot which is why Agnew was ultimately chosen. There's no way that such a virulent racist would allow for Brooke to be on the ticket.

Do you think this more likely results in a boon for Humphrey, or Wallace? Would it split the EC and throw it to the House?
 
Do you think this more likely results in a boon for Humphrey, or Wallace? Would it split the EC and throw it to the House?

Wallace gobbles up almost the entire South. Many white northerners would not like the idea of a black VP in the 1960s and that would swing Nixon voters to Humphrey, but it would swing some black Humphrey voters to Nixon as well. Given how close the '68 election was it's hard to predict these ATL results without using mathematical precision. But my money would be on Humphrey due to the racist backlash against Brooke.
 
It's going to swing some Humphrey voters to Wallace also. Consider Maryland's Eastern Shore: many counties there were at the time as monolithically Democrat as was contemporary Mississippi--and those voters had social views on a rough par with Strom Thurmond at a minimum. With someone like Wallace running, they'll tell a northern liberal like Humphrey to pound sand and defect to Wallace. In truth, I could see a deeply divided Maryland going into the Wallace column by a margin of no more than a few hundred votes. My guess is that the election might well wind up in the House, which means Humphrey gets elected--but not without making one or more deals with the devil, as it were.

Fallout from this election is going to make the late '60s / early '70s IOTL look like a picnic. The nation will be even more deeply divided while Humphrey tries to end Viet Nam, and erstwhile black Nixon/Brooke voters castigate him for not doing enough soon enough for civil rights.

Would Nixon get a third chance to run for president? Probably not. The GOP didn't allow it with Dewey, and though he held himself out as a compromise candidate, Herbert Hoover didn't get the not in 1940. If Nixon loses in '68, he's done, and for good this time. He might emerge as a future GOP SecState, but he would never occupy the Oval Office.
 
It's going to swing some Humphrey voters to Wallace also. Consider Maryland's Eastern Shore: many counties there were at the time as monolithically Democrat as was contemporary Mississippi--and those voters had social views on a rough par with Strom Thurmond at a minimum. With someone like Wallace running, they'll tell a northern liberal like Humphrey to pound sand and defect to Wallace. In truth, I could see a deeply divided Maryland going into the Wallace column by a margin of no more than a few hundred votes. My guess is that the election might well wind up in the House, which means Humphrey gets elected--but not without making one or more deals with the devil, as it were.

Interesting point, but i'm confused as to why you say it would swing Humphrey voters to Wallace; if anything, I would think it could solidify Humphrey's base. Anyone who was going to defect from the Democrats was, in my mind, likely to do so regardless of Nixon. And with a black man as the potential VP, should Nixon win, I'd think they might be more inclined to stick with the "safe" choice, being Humphrey, rather than splitting the vote.
 
The most plausible way Brooke would end up VP is not this route but him being selected to replace Agnew after he resigns, with the added reason of Nixon hoping it’ll stave off impeachment.
 
The most plausible way Brooke would end up VP is not this route but him being selected to replace Agnew after he resigns, with the added reason of Nixon hoping it’ll stave off impeachment.

The scenario that this plays into isn't necessarily concerned with plausibility; to make a long story short, the idea is that Nixon is intentionally led to a bad choice following Agnew's downfall. Brooke being on the ticket is designed to hurt Nixon from the jump, so i'm just wondering what effects this would have on the race.
 
Brooke being on the ticket is designed to hurt Nixon from the jump, so i'm just wondering what effects this would have on the race.

I have to say as a modern viewer that while it would have been great to see a black VP back in 1968, much of the country was still too prejudiced for it to seriously happen. No Republican candidate would want to pick Brooke. Nixon and Reagan couldn't do it because of the South. Rocky couldn't because both are North Eastern liberals. Romney would already be controversial because of his religion and birthplace, adding more controversy would harm the ticket. So Brooke would help the ticket in northern cities, but hurt the ticket in the South and with white blue collar voters who would switch to Reagan twenty years later. Humphrey wins and Nixon's legacy is being a two time loser like Tom Dewey and Adlai Stevenson.
 
I have to say as a modern viewer that while it would have been great to see a black VP back in 1968, much of the country was still too prejudiced for it to seriously happen. No Republican candidate would want to pick Brooke. Nixon and Reagan couldn't do it because of the South. Rocky couldn't because both are North Eastern liberals. Romney would already be controversial because of his religion and birthplace, adding more controversy would harm the ticket. So Brooke would help the ticket in northern cities, but hurt the ticket in the South and with white blue collar voters who would switch to Reagan twenty years later. Humphrey wins and Nixon's legacy is being a two time loser like Tom Dewey and Adlai Stevenson.

Do you think that Brooke's being on the ticket would cause a defection to Humphrey on part of some of the white voters in the north who, while not as aggressive or hardcore as Wallace, would still be unsettled by the idea of a black VP? And further than that, even with Brooke himself being black, he had routinely criticized a lot of other black political leaders and stated "I do not intend to be a national leader of the Negro people" when elected to the Senate; would this hurt the ticket double, by potentially limiting the number of African Americans to vote for them? The scenario as I'm seeing it does exactly this, it forces Nixon to try and play all sides, while ultimately pleasing nobody. But I may be underestimating the support that Brooke would have from African American voters, even if it proved not enough to get him and Nixon across the line.
 
But I may be underestimating the support that Brooke would have from African American voters, even if it proved not enough to get him and Nixon across the line.

1968 was such a weird year that honestly anything is possible. Humphrey started out with a 17 point deficit but in the end he nearly beat Nixon.
 
Interesting point, but i'm confused as to why you say it would swing Humphrey voters to Wallace; if anything, I would think it could solidify Humphrey's base. Anyone who was going to defect from the Democrats was, in my mind, likely to do so regardless of Nixon. And with a black man as the potential VP, should Nixon win, I'd think they might be more inclined to stick with the "safe" choice, being Humphrey, rather than splitting the vote.
I'm speaking of rigidly Democrat voters such as those on MD's Eastern Shore in those days. Their fathers had social views that were almost to the right of Attila the Hun (he said facetiously) yet wouldn't dream of not voting for FDR or Truman, for example. Humphrey would have been a bit much for them to swallow, and a Nixon/Brooke ticket would have been unpalatable, so they defect to Wallace. Equally likely, instead of arriving at Wallace as an alternative, they could have defected to Wallace outright.
 
I'm speaking of rigidly Democrat voters such as those on MD's Eastern Shore in those days. Their fathers had social views that were almost to the right of Attila the Hun (he said facetiously) yet wouldn't dream of not voting for FDR or Truman, for example. Humphrey would have been a bit much for them to swallow, and a Nixon/Brooke ticket would have been unpalatable, so they defect to Wallace. Equally likely, instead of arriving at Wallace as an alternative, they could have defected to Wallace outright.

I guess where the confusion comes in for me is, what makes Humphrey so hard to swallow? While obviously FDR and Truman have advantages that Humphrey did not, he doesn't strike me as someone being wildly outside of the Democratic mainstream.
 
I guess where the confusion comes in for me is, what makes Humphrey so hard to swallow? While obviously FDR and Truman have advantages that Humphrey did not, he doesn't strike me as someone being wildly outside of the Democratic mainstream.
FDR didn't say much about civil rights. Truman was from MO, so was more or less palatable as a quasi-southerner (the voters I spoke of self-identify as southern for the most part). But Humphrey was an unabashed northern liberal with a strong civil rights record, which makes him difficult to swallow.
 
FDR didn't say much about civil rights. Truman was from MO, so was more or less palatable as a quasi-southerner (the voters I spoke of self-identify as southern for the most part). But Humphrey was an unabashed northern liberal with a strong civil rights record, which makes him difficult to swallow.

So, if it was a scenario where Johnson was at the head of the ticket instead, would that help at all? He's still quite obviously "tainted" by Civil Rights, at far as those kinds of Democrats would be concerned, but he's also a southerner. He'd still lose the deep south, but could he manage to keep the border states in his column?
 
So, if it was a scenario where Johnson was at the head of the ticket instead, would that help at all? He's still quite obviously "tainted" by Civil Rights, at far as those kinds of Democrats would be concerned, but he's also a southerner. He'd still lose the deep south, but could he manage to keep the border states in his column?
I think Delaware, maybe so. Maryland on the other hand, I doubt. Don't forget that in the 1966 gubernatorial election, the Dems split. Long-time party hack George P. Mahoney ran on the platform "A Man's Home is his Castle", a very thinly disguised stand against the newly passed housing laws and desegregation in general was the regular organization Dem nominee, and Hyman Pressman ran as an independent to try to counter Mahoney's thinly veiled views. Didn't work. Pressman got just short of 10% of the popular vote; Mahoney, about 40.6% of the popular vote with the balance going to...Spiro Agnew.
 
The most plausible way Brooke would end up VP is not this route but him being selected to replace Agnew after he resigns, with the added reason of Nixon hoping it’ll stave off impeachment.

Wow, that's some devious genius right there. Playing on racial fears to stay in office? It'd be like shooting the moon if it worked. And in the early 70s it just might work...
 
Top