WI Nixon forgoes '68 run?

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?
 
It's Morning In America!

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?:confused:
 
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!

:D
 
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...
Z3100_RFK_STUMP_final_TWO_GALLERY.jpg




Versus...



040204_reagan_vmed_11a.widec.jpg




The Prize...


ovaloff.jpg
 
Therefore, a general election fight between the two most charismatic candidates for their respective parties in the past four decades. So let's do an assessment as good Rovians...


Reagan

Pros: Charismatic, smooth in debates, lock on the South

Cons: Lack of support among moderates, no Democratic support, excessive hawkiness.

Kennedy

Pros: Charismatic, more experienced, restores Democratic fundraising, and unequalled logistical and turnout operation (until Obama).

Cons: Intensely polarizing, suburban alienation, speaking style, only one or two Southern states at best.
 
OOC: And I have absolutely no idea who to vote for. Ideology tells me Reagan, but the desire for an experienced POTUS says Bobby.
 
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...
Z3100_RFK_STUMP_final_TWO_GALLERY.jpg




Versus...



040204_reagan_vmed_11a.widec.jpg




The Prize...


ovaloff.jpg
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!":rolleyes: 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!":)
 
This means Wallace is largely negated. So the election goes to the Democratic House. Better luck next time... Ronnie.
 
Does Sirhan get run over by a truck?

This means Wallace is largely negated. So the election goes to the Democratic House. Better luck next time... Ronnie.
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?:confused:
 
UT: It's called the butterfly effect. As for HHH, his support was like a can of Jell-O: deep but easily plumbable. Sirhan was a nut and nothing else. RFK was closer to George H.W. Bush than George W. Bush on Israel.

Final OTL numbers from Newsweek. Roughly 30% were undecided.
As for Wallace, he would never drop out.

Total: 2626
Humphrey: 852
Kennedy: 713
McCarthy: 275
Uncommitted:
 
Last edited:
I'll put up some maps for everyone, covering all the bases.

RFK v. Reagan. Democratic victory.

genusmap.php


(D) Robert F. Kennedy/J. Terry Sanford: 285 EV, 44.7%
(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Nelson A. Rockefeller: 226 EV, 44.4%
(AIP) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 27 EV, 8.6%

Incumbent President: Lyndon Johnson (D)
President-elect: Robert Kennedy (D)



(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Nelson A. Rockefeller: 273 EV, 43.5%
(D) Robert F. Kennedy/ J. Terry Sanford: 248 EV, 44.1%
(AIP) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 17 EV, 8.6%

President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)



genusmap.php


(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Nelson A. Rockefeller: 270 EV, 44.3%
(D) Hubert H. Humphrey/ J. Terry Sanford: 251 EV, 44.7%

President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)




genusmap.php


(D) Robert F. Kennedy/ J. Terry Sanford: 302 EV, 44.7%
(R) Nelson A. Rockefeller/ George H.W. Bush: 209 EV, 44.3%
(AIP) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 27 EV, 7%

President-elect: Robert Kennedy (D)
 
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!

:D

oilwater1.jpg


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!":rolleyes: 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!":)
To quote Ted Kennedy: "That issue died with my brother, Jack."

Concern over Romney's religion was surprisingly a non-issue. What was an issue was if Romney, born to American parents in Chihuahua, Mexico, was a natural born citizen. If you search political cartoons of the time, you can find the theme of Romney/Mexico frequently. The idea that Romney's religion would have destroyed his candidacy, or did, is a rather frequent and irritating historical misunderstanding.

http://hnn.us/articles/46216.html

Rockey is over-extremized by the modern perspective, and I think to a large degree modern Republican historiography. He was actually a rather rank-and-file Moderate/Liberal Republican. And his campaigns fell apart not because he was unelectable (he was rather electable, given both his name and the political attitudes of the time), but generally because they just lost steam plain and simple. If Goldwater, who represented what was a niche ideology in the GOP by that time (the Western Libertarianism of the Conservative faction), then Rockefeller is in no way out of the question.

Ronnie has a lot of things against him, Historico's TL (which I rather like, btw) not withstanding. He had been Governor only two years, was aggressive in foreign politics at a time when the US wished to just end the nightmare in Vietnam and grew in resentment towards such politics, and was, highest of all, a Conservative. White backlash may have been enough that Conservatism wouldn't have been anything against him, and maybe even for him, and the Democrats falling apart would have helped. But keep in mind that basically everything had to crash into the damn mountain at the end of the 1970s for Reagan to win in the OTL. And Conservatism in social matters did not always relate to Conservatism in economics and social policy, which is where Nixon could excell (railing against the Hippies and New Left, while being perhaps the last Liberal President in his policies) but I think Reagan would go down in flames here (for example, those who still supported the Vietnam war were still not likely to be gung ho for Reagan's ideas of dismantling the Welfare state one FDR and LBJ policy at a time).
 
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.

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. 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).

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).
 
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. That's why the Dem left, esp The Nation et al, were screaming "SoCon Oh My Gawd! We're Doomed!"

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."
 
Last edited:
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.

Romney was the front runner at the start, so I'd say Romney would be neck and neck with Rockefeller for the nomination. And again, his religion was not an issue, although his citizenship status was the source of the controversy. Romney's foremost problem was that he was gaffe ridden. Then again, so were both Bushs who became President.
The death of Romney's campaign came, at least in popular thought, with the Brainwashing gaffe, and even this may not have been what really derailed him; according to Romney, he dropped from the race because he felt he couldn't win against both Rockefeller and Nixon.

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...
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.


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).
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.

In Reagan's favor, he was charismatic, really held the reigns of the Conservative faction following Goldwater, he could play to conservative White backlash to the excesses of the 1960's, and he'd be running against a Democratic administration which was unpopular.

Against Reagan, he was a Conservative at a time when this was a four letter word, railed against the Welfare state and various Liberal social policies which were popular and hence could detract from the support he'd get from the white backlash, supported foreign policy ideas which were rapidly becoming unpopular or had already become unpopular, and would be going up against either HHH (who had almost won in the OTL against a Nixon who, while not charismatic like Reagan, could appeal to across the board far better than Reagan), or an outsider, populist RFK.

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).
I'll let Rogue answer this. Or you can just look at the Kennedyarchy in the wiki.
 
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."
Well, here's the two scenarios I see:

Either the Moderates/Liberals hold sway and Romney or Rockefeller win the nomination. The Conservatives put up their huffy, more so if it's Rocky rather than Romney.

Or, as you have, Reagan wins the nomination, the Moderates/Liberals protest and perhaps even support the Democrat (as many, many did in 1964), and I think the election could get messy.
 
I say that Reagan will win most of the South, except for AL and MS, which goes to Wallace by default. NC and GA go to Bobby if he picks Terry Sanford as Veep. Hubert Humphrey wasn't even on the Democratic ballot in Alabama IOTL, and you can guarantee the Southern Antichrist won't be either.

One aspect that would interest me the most are the debates. Now there was a Bobby-Ronnie debate IOTL: a teleconference with Oxford Union students in 1967. Reagan easily won that one, which was mostly anti-American British students condemning the war. Reagan blasted them, while RFK weaseled: condemning the tone but not the antiwar sentiment.

On foreign policy, I think we'll see the usual "appeaser" v. "warmonger" that characterizes so many US political debates on national security. On domestic policy, Reagan is a goner. "Do you believe that Social Security should be privatized?" Either Reagan lies on national television or he nukes himself on national television.


As for Rocky-HHH: I say Rocky wins after the election goes to the House. Two Northern liberals (from Dixie's POV) mean millions of votes for the Assistant Governor of Alabama.

Rocky-RFK: That would mean a Kennedy win. Rocky wins the middle-class voters and wealthy voters by a wide margin, Bobby sweeps the blue-collars, blacks and Hispanics, with some middle-class votes thrown in. If Reagan or Nixon do not lead the ticket, California goes Democratic. Given the vagaries of the 1968 electoral map, that means a Democratic victory, though it would be less of a victory in CA if Humphrey, not Kennedy, is nominated.
 
Last edited:
A number of points to address. First, how does Kennedy survive? Simply quoting "the butterfly effect" is insufficient, but there are ways to accomplish this. Given the altered playing field of the election campaign, it is inevitable that changes will be made in the stump schedules for the various candidates. With this in mind the door is opened to several disruptions in Sirhan's preparations, possibly a different venue for Kennedy's primary victory speech. In such a scenario, while it is unlikely that Sirhan will pass up his opportunity to take the shot, the strong possibility exists that he will not be successful. Following from this, it is even possible to posit an ironic sort of "best-case" scenario for Kennedy in which he is wounded but lives, likely resulting in a massive outpouring of public sympathy.

Even in the absence of such a sympathy vote, assuming that Kennedy lives he is the most likely candidate to take the Democratic nomination. HHH held much clout with the party elites but was lacking in a real public base, despite being the incumbent VP. In almost all states he opted not to run in the primaries at all. This was still possible in those days as public primaries were not directly linked to the nomination, rather they were a mechanism by which candidates could demonstrate their viability to the heads of party apparatus. HHH had nothing to prove to his constituents at the top of the Democratic party, and rightly viewed a poor primary performance as damaging to his credibility. The '68 election, however, was what really began the shift away from party machine nominations to popular primary nominations, as one large aspect of the controversy at the '68 convention was awarding the nomination to the well-connected HHH, despite the fact that he had run in no primaries, much to the outrage of McCarthy supporters. This controversy ultimately started the wheels turning which led to the reforms that created the current primary system.
History lesson being over (sorry), the point I am trying to get to in my circumlocutions is that Kennedy possesses both the clout with the Democratic party heads and the added strength of a strong primary performance, a two-fisted combination that I feel would net him the nomination over his rivals. This being said, however, it is possible that an unintended consequence of this relatively clear cut nomination might be a lack of necessary controversy to begin the party reform movement, leaving continued influence in the hands of party elites. In such a scenario it becomes very unlikely that Carter would be able to make his eventual presumptive bid. Butterflies, butterflies...
 
IG: If you want clear-cut evidence of boss support: "If he wins California, he's going to be all right."- Mayor Richard Daley to Housing Commissioner Richard Wade (Kennedy liaison to City Hall), May 30, 1968.

Having Kennedy live can be accomplished one of many ways.

1) Have the press conference take place in Malibu. IOTL it was scheduled to be at a private residence where Kennedy was staying, but the press refused to move their equipment from the Ambassador to Malibu.

2) Someone gets a little bit suspicious in that kitchen: Someone asking when the resident VIP is going through every few minutes is definitely not asking for an autograph. Since there was no security, call the LAPD and exit through the main lobby.

3) Have Kennedy duck: a two-inch clearance allows the second slug to hit the rear skull, not brain tissue. Once the doctors confirmed that .22 shrapnel was in his brain, there was very little hope.

4) Kennedy wins Oregon (44-41 Kennedy instead of 44-39 McCarthy), less stressful campaign: When the news that he tapped Dr. King's phone was released from the White House via Drew Pearson, it was game over in Oregon. Strangely, white civil libertarians took offence but black Californians helped deliver CA.


If you had read my posts, I fully agree that Kennedy's nomination was quite likely. He had Daley, he had the primaries, he had the fundraising, organization, and charisma.

On the subject of McGovern-Fraser: the system would have to change eventually ITTL. With the exception of Daley, Kennedy was unsentimental towards any of the bosses and had the unappeasable will to carry through on reform if elected President. And if Kennedy wins in 1968, there is no Jimmy Carter because there is no Watergate. If Kennedy loses and comes back in 1976, there is still no Jimmy Carter because there is no President Nixon.

P.S.: Please don't lecture me on something which I am known to specialize in on this Board.
 
Top