WI President Rocky

Got the idea on this thread, from RogueBeaver largely:

Suppose RFK still gets shot by Sirhan, but Nixon is also killed -- say, in a plane crash, while he's doing the extended good will visit in Latin America. Humphrey still gets the Democratic nomination, and the strongest candidate the Republicans can find is Nelson Rockefeller. Rocky beats Hubert in the 68 election.

What would his presidency be like? Who do you see as his VP, and/or in his cabinet? How does he handle the issues of the day?
 
The strongest candidate wouldn't be Rocky, it would be Reagan. Most of Nixon's support would go to Reagan if he fell short on the first ballot or wasn't a candidate, and you would have Reagan '68. Reagan would curbstomp HHH and sweep the South, leaving Wallace with Mississippi and Alabama. For the first time in their history, the Dems would be shut out of their historical base. Also: the South American visit was in 1958, not 1968. ;) Nixon was obsessed with security and always screened his audiences, you can't say the same for RFK.

genusmap.php


(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Gerald R. Ford: 405 EV, 52.7%
(D) Hubert H. Humphrey/ J. Terry Sanford: 116 EV, 41.3%
(AI) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 17 EV, 5.6%

Incumbent President: Lyndon Johnson (D)
President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)
 
GAH -- forgot about Reagan! So minus Nixon, he's the best bet huh?

I can see Reagan out of the picture easily enough in the other thread (JFK lives), but piling on Nixon here?

Does this mean (as been discussed on other threads) Rocky's only real chance is in 1960?
 
No, because Nixon had a firm lock on the nomination because of all the IOUs he'd collected over the previous 4 years. That applies for both 1960 and 1968. The closest parallel for Rocky contesting '60 would be '88- Bush had a lock but had a few challengers to his nomination, none of whom really had a chance. Ike didn't like Rocky at all- he thought he was a wealthy spendthrift who would unbalance the budget.

You are not going to have 2 deaths in '68. It is virtually certain that there will be an attempt (most likely unsuccessful) on RFK at some point or another. Secret Service protection for candidates today was initiated because of the RFK assassination.
 
The strongest candidate wouldn't be Rocky, it would be Reagan. Most of Nixon's support would go to Reagan if he fell short on the first ballot or wasn't a candidate, and you would have Reagan '68. Reagan would curbstomp HHH and sweep the South, leaving Wallace with Mississippi and Alabama. For the first time in their history, the Dems would be shut out of their historical base. Also: the South American visit was in 1958, not 1968. ;) Nixon was obsessed with security and always screened his audiences, you can't say the same for RFK.

genusmap.php


(R) Ronald W. Reagan/ Gerald R. Ford: 405 EV, 52.7%
(D) Hubert H. Humphrey/ J. Terry Sanford: 116 EV, 41.3%
(AI) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 17 EV, 5.6%

Incumbent President: Lyndon Johnson (D)
President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)


Your study of the era is probably more substantial than mine, but I have some problems with the ease of Reagan's victory. To begin with, he's only been Governor of California for two years. And I'm guessing that would present some issues in the campaign. More importantly, Reagan was essentially a Goldwater Republican, and this is just four years after the disaster that was the 1964 campaign. Ideologically, I'm not sure if the times and Reagan were yet in sync.

In a national election, his one advantage is charisma, from what I remember by 1968 Humphrey basically didn't have any. But he's deeply connected with an ideology that was dramatically repudiated four years earlier. The Democrats are going to have a much easier time tarring him as an extremist four years after Goldwater. I'm not saying it's impossible to see a Reagan victory, but his campaign will be difficult given the circumstances. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm just not sure the country was ready for Ronald Reagan in 1968.

Also why does HHH pick Sanford here? As I recall, in at least his own mind he had good reasons for picking Muskie. I understand the logic of picking Sanford as RFK's VP nominee, but not why HHH changes his mind here.
 
Pat Brown tried to tar Reagan as an extremist in '66- it didn't work, and Reagan wasn't hiding his ideology at all in that gubernatorial race. In 1968 the electorate was looking for someone who could restore law and order at home and peace abroad. Nixon, Reagan, RFK and Wallace fit the law-and-order bill, Rocky and HHH did not.

Muskie doesn't bring anything to the ticket: 1968 is the year of the white working-class (WWC) voter. HHH only got 38% of the white vote IOTL. RFK rolled up massive majorities (55% or higher in 3-way races) among WWC voters not repeated by a Democrat until Clinton a a quarter-century later. Nixon was Nixon and Wallace was Wallace. A Dem needed one Southern state besides Texas, and the VP choices narrow down to Sanford or Carl Sanders (Carter's predecessor as GA governor). Sanders is a better pick, because he's not tarred with the "traitor" label as Sanford was. He's also younger (42, like RFK) compared to the 57 year old Humphrey.

Reagan is incredibly charismatic as we know, in a three-way tie for greatest presidential orator along with Lincoln and FDR. RFK is the only Dem who can equal Reagan's star power, but those are two separate sorts of charisma.
 
Ok, I'll rephrase the question -- prior to 1972*, what is Rocky's best shot at winning the Presidency?

In 1968 the electorate was looking for someone who could restore law and order at home and peace abroad. Nixon, Reagan, RFK and Wallace fit the law-and-order bill, Rocky and HHH did not.

Maybe this is better suited for the "JFK lives" thread, but suppose these didn't become such big issues -- so Reagan isn't elected governor of California in 66, and Nixon, at the least, would have to find another line.

*seeing as he died in 77, and I'd like to see/do a plausible TL where he serves at least one full term, that's the latest it can go
 
Rocky's best shot at the presidency is in 1964- have Goldwater die while piloting his plane in Arizona. Ironically this means LBJ will have to ask RFK (seriously, not pro forma) to become VP to secure the Northeastern, Catholic and youth vote. I wouldn't bet on an acceptance, but it's not ASB for RFK to say yes.

Nixon's line is: "I'm the most experienced, Romney isn't presidential material (the press will find that out fairly soon) and I'm the only Bobby-beater amongst you." Rocky would get curbstomped by RFK, as would Romney. Either of them could beat Humphrey. So ironically both Bobby and Nixon need each other to run. :p
 
Pat Brown tried to tar Reagan as an extremist in '66- it didn't work, and Reagan wasn't hiding his ideology at all in that gubernatorial race. In 1968 the electorate was looking for someone who could restore law and order at home and peace abroad. Nixon, Reagan, RFK and Wallace fit the law-and-order bill, Rocky and HHH did not.

Muskie doesn't bring anything to the ticket: 1968 is the year of the white working-class (WWC) voter. HHH only got 38% of the white vote IOTL. RFK rolled up massive majorities (55% or higher in 3-way races) among WWC voters not repeated by a Democrat until Clinton a a quarter-century later. Nixon was Nixon and Wallace was Wallace. A Dem needed one Southern state besides Texas, and the VP choices narrow down to Sanford or Carl Sanders

You make a good case for Reagan, though in my estimation the concept of 1968 as the WWC election is the key to your argument here. It also probably depends on which of those two desires is seen as more important to the contemporary electorate. Reagan isn't much of a peace candidate.

As for Muskie, I wasn't questioning why you consider Muskie a bad candidate, or why Sanford might have been a better choice, it's whether Humphrey would realize that or not. That's a different issue entirely, having more to do with HHH mindset than anything else. The question was how Reagan's nomination would effect Humphrey in such a way as to make a better choice for VP. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear there.
 
Humphrey did ask Sanford IOTL but Sanford refused. Maybe if he makes a stronger appeal, or LBJ calls in a favor. Very few had the balls to say no to Lyndon Johnson- Sanford is not one of them. :p If forced to choose the electorate would choose law and order- it's more of an immediate threat than 'Nam.
 
Humphrey did ask Sanford IOTL but Sanford refused. Maybe if he makes a stronger appeal, or LBJ calls in a favor. Very few had the balls to say no to Lyndon Johnson- Sanford is not one of them. :p If forced to choose the electorate would choose law and order- it's more of an immediate threat than 'Nam.

That extra effort, in my estimation really does depend on how Humphrey sees Reagan. It implies that ITTL he views Reagan as at least more of a threat than he did Nixon IOTL, since he didn't go through the extra effort to get Sanford when running against Nixon IOTL. It's not a huge issue for me,more nitpicking than anything else.
 
Of course Reagan would be a greater threat- a Reagan v. HHH match ensures a Reagan victory in November. There's no way for HHH to beat Reagan.
 
He runs up the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art while "Gonna Fly Now" comes to its climax? Sorry had to :rolleyes:

RB - just because Reagan had the best chance to win against HHH, doesn't mean he'd win against Rocky in the primaries. There is always the possibility of a gaffe, which seem to have more weight in the early primaries than anywhere else in the political process.
 
Top