WI Nixon forgoes '68 run?

Because the butterflies would all but ensure his survival with a February 1968 POD. Nixon's lock on the nomination can be broken at the convention itself, with a July 1968 POD, which is not my OP. In any case, no RFK in 1968 means RFK in 1976. ;) Here's the electoral map, which translates into a Reagan sweep.

genusmap.php


(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Gerald R. Ford: 315 EV, 46.3%
(D) Hubert H. Humphrey/ J. Terry Sanford: 194 EV, 43.7%
(AIP) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 29 EV, 9.1%

President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)
 
Perhaps Nixon decides to become Secretary of State or UN Ambassador in a Reagan administration? Nixon offered that to Humphrey IOTL, and perhaps Reagan, or even Kennedy are in a generous mood.

*Evil Cackle at the thought of RFK passing up an opportunity to metaphorically kick Nixon in the balls one last time.*
 
Last edited:
Douglas: I don't doubt the expertise of a fellow '68 buff like yourself, but I've laid out scenarios where either Humphrey or Kennedy win. You believe Humphrey, I believe 50-50. Neither of our scenarios are ASB, so can we agree to disagree?
 
Douglas: I don't doubt the expertise of a fellow '68 buff like yourself, but I've laid out scenarios where either Humphrey or Kennedy win. You believe Humphrey, I believe 50-50. Neither of our scenarios are ASB, so can we agree to disagree?

Oh, I don't think it is 100-0, just that it is unlikely.

I was just thinking that it's odd for a No Nixon thread to transfer into an RFK '68 thread. :p
 
After crunching many 1968 electoral maps, I've come to the conclusion that only Nixon could beat Kennedy, only Kennedy could beat Reagan, and that either HHH or RFK could beat Nixon. So if you want Reagan in '68, have Hubert nominated. :p
 
Electoral College

After crunching many 1968 electoral maps, I've come to the conclusion that only Nixon could beat Kennedy, only Kennedy could beat Reagan, and that either HHH or RFK could beat Nixon. So if you want Reagan in '68, have Hubert nominated. :p
Thanks for putting together the Reagan vs HHH map. But Jerry Ford as Reagan's VP? Two Californians? Could say a Texas Republican be found? Or is that a 1968 oxymoron?:confused:
 
Very interesting thread.

What does Reagan, if elected, do about Vietnam?

If Reagan is elected and follows a hawkish line on Vietnam I think he would be in trouble in 1972. Especially since Chappaquiddick would almost certainly be butterflied leaving Teddy free to run in 72, unless he defers to RFK's wanting to run in 76, if he is still alive in this TL.
 
Reagan would be as hawkish as he could get away with: letting Abrams do his job without interference. The problem is for Reagan to win, you need HHH nominated. Daley, who has the final word in that year's nomination, knows that HHH cannot beat Reagan. Not because Americans agree with Reagan's policies, but because HHH can hope to win, at most, two Southern states with the rest going to Wallace or Reagan. HHH cannot make California a tossup state against Reagan. HHH has zero charisma, which doesn't matter against Nixon but does against Reagan. Kennedy is the "tousle-haired charismatic" who does have that prized quality in abundance.

To get back to your question, let's handwave and say Kennedy and Nixon stay out. The moniker "Hamlet on the Hudson" applied to Kennedy and Rocky for good reasons. HHH and Reagan are nominated by their respective parties, Reagan wins as depicted in that map. If Kennedy, sensing that Reagan is vulnerable in 1972 (when he originally planned to run), decides to jump in, he will run and if the economy is stalled, Kennedy wins in 1972 and likely 1976. Reagan is a one-term failed president, and neoliberalism is stillborn.

Again, Robert is the head of the family, and enforces said prerogative regardess of TTL.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for putting together the Reagan vs HHH map. But Jerry Ford as Reagan's VP? Two Californians? Could say a Texas Republican be found? Or is that a 1968 oxymoron?:confused:

Jerry Ford was from Michigan.

I'm not sure if he is the best choice for the VP slot, but he certainly is not a Californian (and the GOP would have to forget some of the most basic electoral laws to put two such people on a ticket).

As for Texas... the state is starting to tip towards the GOP column, but is still in an imtermediate stage. There is Tower, I suppose. I don't think that he would appeal very much to the conservatives, or the nation as a whole, but he is there.
 
RogueBeaver, I do personally think that surviving RFK would get the nomination and Presidency, and serve from 68-76. Then maybe Reagan makes a comeback, gets elected and loses in 1980 to Teddy(No Chappaquiddick).
 
The GOP and Wallace will split the South- no gestures are necessary when facing the Southern Antichrist or even Humphrey. Kennedy would pick Terry Sanford, who can carry NC and TX for the Dems. While some sources suggest Bobby's friend Sen. Fred Harris (D-OK), he's too young at 37. RFK is only 42, and given his stump style, an excess of youth would not be helpful in winning middle-class votes. Daley wouldn't be impressed either.
 
$$$... or a lack thereof. The party was split over the war, they'd just had a police riot, a President had been primaried, and the domestic scene was out of control. By September, Humphrey could not run regional or state ads due to lack of funds and credit. Big Labor gave Humphrey the muscle to nearly win. If Wallace had won one or two more states, it would've gone to the House, and a Humphrey victory would be likely. In contrast, Kennedy spent $4 million in Indiana alone (~20 million today), with a fundraising op like Obama's in 2008 and a GOTV operation like Bush/Rove's circa 2004. No one wanted to vote for Humphrey: they were voting Democratic (in the general) or against Bobby (the HHH delegates).
 
Just wondering, but what about Eugene McCarthy's role in all this? Is their any chance of him getting the nomination, and what would his chances be against Rockefeller or Reagan?
 
Absolutely no chance for Gene: 75% of the delegates are controlled by state delegation bosses, with Hizzonor wielding final veto power. If you read McCarthy's speeches, they are very New Leftish. But when he speaks in that professorial tone, his proposals sound perfectly reasonable. If you listen to Kennedy, his tone sounds radical, but the transcripts are somewhat different. In the Oregon debate, the only noteworthy moment was when RFK laid out a detailed plan for urban development- stats, budgets, etc. Gene McCarthy mentioned the "practical apartheid" of the ghetto and made a proposal that hinted at population transfers.

Kennedy: "When you say you'll take 10,000 people and move them into Orange County..."- insinuating that Gene wished a SA-style population transfer. Press called Bobby a demagogue, again. That was the only noteworthy moment in a debate which was otherwise as dramatic as two elderly women gossiping.
 
Last edited:
Top