IOTL, Nixon came very close to deciding against a run in 1968. Let's say he decides to wait until 1972, or remain in private life. Does Romney have a chance? Does November come down to a battle between the two Imperial Statesmen?
If Nixon were to be out of it from the start, wouldn't that encourage a certain California Governor who did play with the idea OTL?IOTL, Nixon came very close to deciding against a run in 1968. Let's say he decides to wait until 1972, or remain in private life. Does Romney have a chance? Does November come down to a battle between the two Imperial Statesmen?
Sadly, I have to agree that Mormonism would be the stumbling block for Romney. And there was a huge block of Republican voters who would never vote for Nelson Rockefeller. Anybody see videotapes of NR speaking at the '64 convention? It was literally an Orwellian Hate, with the delegates screaming at the top of their lungs just so NR couldn't be heard! "We don't need you Goldstein!"I think that a Rocky-Reagan fight would be the outcome, and the ticket would go either way depending who wins. IOTL, most of Nixon's supporters would go for Reagan over Rocky. So we have the legendary ATL campaign...
![]()
Versus...
![]()
The Prize...
![]()
I'm not trying to start any trouble, but I thought this TL was about Nixon Not being in the race, not Bobby's survival. Sirhan's motive for killing RFK was so egocentric that he would have killed JFK were he still alive, or Teddy if Jack and Bobby were already dead. I just don't see where HHH is automatically off the board. He IS the VP. And if someone as far to the right as Reagan is running, would Wallace consider backing out?This means Wallace is largely negated. So the election goes to the Democratic House. Better luck next time... Ronnie.
I'm somewhat skeptical of Romney, since he was a Mormon, and I'm not sure if A Mormon would be able to get the nomination at that time. It was a bit of a problem for his son in 2008, just fourty years later. Nelson Rockefeller seems more likely to me.
Rockefeller/Reagan '68!
![]()
To quote Ted Kennedy: "That issue died with my brother, Jack."Sadly, I have to agree that Mormonism would be the stumbling block for Romney. And there was a huge block of Republican voters who would never vote for Nelson Rockefeller. Anybody see videotapes of NR speaking at the '64 convention? It was literally an Orwellian Hate, with the delegates screaming at the top of their lungs just so NR couldn't be heard! "We don't need you Goldstein!"Just because Goldwater got historically curbstomped didn't mean the rank and file party activist-members got the message. Many said Goldwater just wasn't enough of a savvy politician in reaching out to voters. Reagan certainly would address this and give the base what they want. And if Reagan's facing HHH, somebody who even Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury) sees as too bland, then it IS "Morning In America!"
![]()
Hm... I would agree that Romney isn't that viable a candidate. Just to weak, and the mormonism will hurt him a lot among the base.
The scenario is that Nixon doesn't run. Add on to that that the Moderate-Liberal faction Rocky led was the majority, and the Conservative right the minority, and Rockefeller has a good shot.Rockefeller may actually be the best choice for the GOP, but unless he can somehow swipe the vast majority of Nixon's support (which ain't happening), he cannot win the nomination. The right of the party dislikes him too much. That leaves...
Reagan is a Conservative, which is enough to hurt him heavily right there, although he could pull off the same thing he did in 1980 out of the disillusion of the decade before.Reagan. Probably picks up somewhere between where Goldwater left off and where Nixon started. IMO, the default republican nominee between '68 and '76 barring mitigating circumstances (a sitting president, a man with a very good claim to the top slot on the ticket (Nixon in '68), or previous electoral defeats).
I'll let Rogue answer this. Or you can just look at the Kennedyarchy in the wiki.As for RFK, are the bosses really going to just hand him the nomination?
Although Kennedy vs. Reagan in '68 would be an election to remember (although whether either wins reelection is an open question).
Well, here's the two scenarios I see:I agree with Norton. Reagan would be the likeliest to win the nomination without Nixon. Even period sources say so. Many moderate and centrist Republicans would be repelled by Reagan, and might abstain from voting, or even go Democratic. If Reagan the uber-hawk is nominated, Kennedy has much more tactical flexibility on Vietnam. That leaves him room with the base to advocate anything from negotiations to OTL Vietnamization to Vietnamization with immediate phased withdrawals.
Reagan has no foreign policy experience at a time when this is key. Reagan's record could be attacked on the 1967 tax increase and the ill-fated attempt at a 10% across-the-board spending cut. Centrist Republicans who abhor "voodoo economics" might go for Kennedy, an economic moderate (as were all '68 candidates except Reagan) by period standards. On social issues, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, despite the haircut.
Reagan: "I think Bobby talks so much about poverty because he didn't have any as a kid... He's using so much of my material I'll have to rewrite my speeches."