WI : Nixon Vs Johnson in 1968?

Nixon probably wins by a larger margin. With HHH you can project your own feelings about the war onto him, accurately or not. If you're against the war and LBJ is the nominee, there's no possibility of doing that and you might vote for an antiwar independent or even Nixon as a protest.

Possible wrinkle: If RFK is still assassinated (which might be butterflied if LBJ is still a candidate and wraps up the nomination before California), Nixon might run a whisper campaign suggesting LBJ was behind both Kennedy assassinations. The JFK conspiracy theories are out there anyway, and if RFK is still a threat politically, he'll be in California on June 5. Nixon was certainly low enough to put the idea out there as well as smart enough to not suggest it openly.
 
The joker in the deck is, of course, George Wallace. If the unthinkable happens and the election goes to the House, he may control just enough states to play kingmaker--assuming he can sway the congressional delegations of those states.

If it goes to the House, Nixon wins hands down: Article II gives each state delegation one vote, not each Representative. He definitely has 25 state delegations, closer to 30; vs. maybe 15 for LBJ and 5 for Wallace (and the latter are as likely to flip to Nixon as LBJ).
 
I don't think Johnson would release the peace sabotage by Nixon as OTL- the question of how Nixon's sabotage was discovered (through an illegal wiretap) would probably hurt him, negating any drops in the polls for Nixon.

There's also the question of Johnson's health, OTL he died in 1973 after starting to smoke again. Maybe he would have a few extra years in the tank, but there's the stresses of the presidency to consider.
 
If it goes to the House, Nixon wins hands down: Article II gives each state delegation one vote, not each Representative. He definitely has 25 state delegations, closer to 30; vs. maybe 15 for LBJ and 5 for Wallace (and the latter are as likely to flip to Nixon as LBJ).

Hopefully Nixon would have at least 26 that were clearly his (even better with a few extra). Otherwise LBJ will keep the division and anger going by accusing Nixon of cutting abdeal with Wallace. If it's not close enough for that to be realistic he can't do it.
 
I'm of the opinion that Johnson was too closely connected with Vietnam and social unrest to win a second term - which is why he bowed out during the primaries. It's true that Humphrey did almost win. But that was because he made an effort to separate himself from Johnson and his policies. There's an outside chance that LBJ could pull off an upset, but aside from that he probably loses to Nixon.
 
If it goes to the House, Nixon wins hands down: Article II gives each state delegation one vote, not each Representative. He definitely has 25 state delegations, closer to 30; vs. maybe 15 for LBJ and 5 for Wallace (and the latter are as likely to flip to Nixon as LBJ).
I'm not so sure about that. I believe the 90th Congress (that is, the House portion thereof) would decide the issue. According to a map found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:90_us_house_membership.png, it appears that the GOP held 18 states, the Democrats, 29, and three split.

Now, of those 29, five were states that went for Wallace IOTL. I'd have to think LBJ would have exerted tremendous pressure on the leadership in those five to hold the line to ensure his election. If he can't do that, Wallace plays kingmaker. That's where it really gets ugly.
 
I'm not so sure about that. I believe the 90th Congress (that is, the House portion thereof) would decide the issue. According to a map found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:90_us_house_membership.png, it appears that the GOP held 18 states, the Democrats, 29, and three split.

Now, of those 29, five were states that went for Wallace IOTL. I'd have to think LBJ would have exerted tremendous pressure on the leadership in those five to hold the line to ensure his election. If he can't do that, Wallace plays kingmaker. That's where it really gets ugly.

So Johnson would have to maintain support in all Democratic states that didn’t go to Wallace IOTL and just convince one more to back him to win?

That’s not a cakewalk, and would really damage his popularity, but it’s well within reach.

I think Johnson would have found ways of exposing Nixon's undermining of the Vietnam Peace talks

That would have given him a clear win

I really think this could happen and force the GOP to consider purging some leading figures who were down to commit some crimes. Might make the party lose its old boys club element that it has kept to this day.
 
So Johnson would have to maintain support in all Democratic states that didn’t go to Wallace IOTL and just convince one more to back him to win?

That’s not a cakewalk, and would really damage his popularity, but it’s well within reach.

No; he'd need to get two more states to back him to get a majority; i.e., 26 of 50 state delegations. Thus, he'd have to secure party loyalty in any two of the Wallace states.
I should have realized that if the election went into the House, it would be Johnson's to lose, given the breakdown of state delegations--at least on the surface. But he has to convince at least two states that might potentially bolt to hold the party line. And that won't be easy without the bargain. (I'm not sure what happens to the split states: I suppose they vote "present" but don't cast a vote for a candidate since in all likelihood there would be no agreement.)

From what I can see, Johnson's best shot at gaining a Wallace state would be Arkansas: that was the one in which Wallace's victory was closest. It's tough to guess how much influence Wallace might have on the congressional delegation in any one state, or where the representatives place the greater priority: the popular vote outcome or party loyalty. If it's the former, Lyndon Johnson would have to make a Faustian bargain with Wallace. That would pretty much make his victory hollow, particularly in the north, and with minorities.

The term from 1969 to 1973 will be incredibly turbulent, and I suspect Johnson might not survive. But either way, the Dems are doomed in 1972. Either Humphrey or whomever would get the nod would have several tons of Johnson baggage, starting with the Wallace bargain. All the GOP has to do is nominate a reasonably moderate candidate (Nixon would be finished; Rockefeller still has baggage from his divorce) and they're home free. Someone like Charles Percy or Howard Baker would work admirably.

Footnote: Spiro Agnew would be no more than a political footnote / joke, and the headlines for his corruption indictment would probably go no farther than the circulation of the Baltimore newspapers.
 
The only scenario I can see where Johnson is the nominee would be one where the Vietnam War is going just well enough for Johnson to in turn be re-elected. Say the US and South Vietnam forces get an even earlier tip off of the Tet Offensive and it's just absolutely obliterated then Johnson could win more convincingly in New Hampshire and RFK and others stay out. He gives his March 31st speech exactly as he did, but omits the withdrawal portion and skates through. Then the whole election may come down to whether Johnson can actually secure a peace while Nixon is sabotaging it behind the scenes. And also whether there are any assassinations. If Robert Kennedy stays out of it, Eugene McCarthy is far more likely to be actively campaigning in California where Sirhan Sirhan lived...though he was more focused on Robert Kennedy specifically. Ultimately, I am inclined to think that Johnson skates by on incumbency and a slightly better Vietnam situation. Perhaps speed up the TL of the end of Vietnam for four years. The stress of office probably kills Johnson before his term is up leaving Humphrey in charge. Though Johnson may think it is worth it to be the man in office when we land on the moon.
 
Top