WI: Nixon doesnt pursue Southern Strategy

What if, instead of pandering to racist white Democrats in the South, Nixon decides to pursue a different Republican Majority (you can make your own, but mine is...) like Southern Blacks, Big Business, Northern Suburbs, and Northern Blacks. Even if the Sunbelt is the growing region, Nixon's coalition proves enough in 1968. Wallace gains several Southern States, Humphrey gains Ohio, and Illinois, but Nixon gains New York, Pennsylvania and Washington State:

genusmap.php

Nixon: 285
Humphrey 162
Wallace: 91

So now what? Nixon still has a good majority, at least for Presidential Elections, and what becomes of our beloved Democrats?

Maybe The Democrats combine Economic Populism with the Religious Right to keep the South? Or do they cede the South to Third Party?
 
With no southern strategy (not saying what they'd do instead), the move towards family-values conservativism epitomized by reagan wouldn't materialize on schedule. Long run, republicans would have a much better shot with minority voters overall, including hispanics. There would be a lot more openings for populist types in the dems though, who would grab lower-class Americans. This might culminate in a reversal of the trends IOTL, with dems dominating through the 80's while republican leadership has nobody as strong as Reagan, and republicans gaining force in the 2000's for demographic reasons.

Of course, politics has more butterflies than almost anything else, barring perhaps pop-culture, especially on a question as open-ended as this one. Might as well ask "what if Ghenghis Khan opted for early retirement in a sunny, ocean-side Mongolian resort town?"
 
As a Canadian and a Quebecer, there are some comments I'd like to make. The South was always more ideologically compatible with the Republican Party on social and later economic issues. 157 ECV at your permanent command is nothing to laugh at. In Canada, we had something similar in Quebec, another "conquered" part of the country which was somewhat distinct sociologically. They were "betrayed" first by the Conservative Party in 1885 over Riel and 1917 over conscription. Then they turned Liberal, and were "betrayed" in 1942 over conscription, 1990 over Meech and 1992 over Charlottetown. Then the Bloc was founded and continues to hold most of Quebec off Montreal Island. Why? Partially because the two major parties made policy decisions, which while mostly necessary, led them to create a third party. In the South, it was more distinct because the Democrats had been the "protector" since the Civil War, and had even been the Bloc (calling for regional independence in the national legislature) up to a point. Civil Rights was the final straw. Now we're condemned to a long period of minority governments, having had three elections in five years. I would not wish that on anyone. The South needed reintegration without this, and Nixon accomplished it. To be blunt, better "inside the tent pissing out" than "outside the tent pissing in" to quote LBJ.
 
Top