WI: Nixon's "Checkers" Speech Flops?

What if Nixon's "Checkers" Speech, where he managed to completely deflect accusations of conflict of interest surrounding a "slush fund", not only failed to work, but made the American people think he was nothing more than a sleazy film-flam man? Would the issue, which was so disregarded IOTL, have, in reaction to the failed speech, been so overblown that criminal charges are a possibility? Would Eisenhower have booted him off the ticket, and who would have replaced Nixon? Dirksen? Driscoll? Taft? Even Adams? What would be the consequences for the rest of Nixon's career? Would he have been censured, if not expelled, by the Senate? Would the scandal drag down Eisenhower's campaign sufficiently to make Stevenson do better?
 
Although Smith in 52 was probably too big a stretch it does pose an interesting WI.

Especially if Ike doesn't survive his heart attack in 55
 
Earl Warren doesn't take (or isn't offered) the SCOTUS position, and remains Governor of California, then gets the 1952 or 1956 VP spot ?
 
Last edited:
It was almost certain it would be Knowland. He checks off all the same boxes. Conservative California Senator. In fact, if I remember correctly, he was plotting against Nixon before the Checkers thing. Knowland hated Nixon so much that he tried to become Governor in 1958 so he could control California's delegates in 1960 and deny Nixon the nomination and give it to himself instead. Of course, that failed miserably.
 
I agree that it's Knowland. Although sometimes called an "Asia-Firster" he supported the North Atlantic Treaty (unlike Taft) and aid to Europe, so he would not be ideologically unacceptable to Ike in 1952.
 
I agree that it's Knowland. Although sometimes called an "Asia-Firster" he supported the North Atlantic Treaty (unlike Taft) and aid to Europe, so he would not be ideologically unacceptable to Ike in 1952.
He could have gotten the nomination in 1964 if he hadn't done something so stupid as the switch. It goes to show in politics, very smart people can be very dumb. I also wonder what Goodwin Knight had ran for reelection and beat Pat Brown.
 
Not to excuse slush funds and the like but the Senate has seen far worse, so I don't think censure is likely at all. What I would surmise is that Nixon is removed, forcibly or voluntarily, from the ticket, and is probably replaced by Knowland. Since Knowland was five years older than Nixon, I question he'd have gotten a lot of consideration for the nomination in 1960. That might have paved the way for a Rockefeller candidacy (can't you see the commentary: "Two candidates--the finest money can buy").

But back to Nixon. After removal from the ticket, he serves out his term in the Senate and doesn't get another. He may well go into private law practice, perhaps in Los Angeles, and becomes something of a shadowy power behind the throne for the California GOP while practicing corporate or international law. He'd be out of public life per se, but would be a delegate to GOP conventions from '60 onward. Indeed, he might be something of a kingmaker, depending upon future events. He might wind up with a late-in-life appointment as ambassador to a relatively non-demanding post as a retirement present of sorts. Probably he lives at least as long as he did IOTL. He'd be a tertiary figure in most 20th century histories.
 
Top