WI: Reagan/Bush in 1968

[Deleted member 180541]

The first POD is that George H. W. Bush narrowly wins the 1964 Texas Senatorial Election, meaning he is larger figure on the national stage and a small contender for the nomination in 1968. The second POD is that Reagan wins the Republican nomination in 1968 after Nixon fails to win the first ballot, and he goes on to choose the moderate senator George H. W. Bush as his running mate. The third POD is that George Wallace, for whatever reason, decides not to run in the election. Perhaps feeling he can't run a successful campaign with a staunch conservative on the GOP ballot.

Ronald W. Reagan | George H. W. Bush | 390 EV
Hubert H. Humphrey | Edmund S. Muskie | 147 EV

How will things progress from here?

 

[Aubreyyy]

Triple H probably wins. No one wanted what Reagan was selling economically in 68, and in a pre watergate world with the Vietnam war going on Reagans only experience being "governor of California for less than 2 years" is toxic. Especially if he picks Bush who was just as inexperienced at that point. It would definitely be a lot closer at the very least.

 

[Deleted member 180541]

Triple H probably wins. No one wanted what Reagan was selling economically in 68, and in a pre watergate world with the Vietnam war going on Reagans only experience being "governor of California for less than 2 years" is toxic. Especially if he picks Bush who was just as inexperienced at that point. It would definitely be a lot closer at the very least.

Reagan would not be arguing for supply-side economics in 1968, and I think a four year stint as a senator is enough for Bush to get on the VP ticket. Remember, Bush was considered for VP in our timeline despite his political experience being limited to one year in the house. Reagan is a good communicator and rhetorically gifted, and will be able to take the blows for his lack of experience by attacking Humphrey's perceived feebleness and submissiveness during the Johnson administration. And Reagan's hawkishness and belligerency towards Vietnam would not be as toxic as once would believe - many people in 1968 would prefer victory over simply peace. Moreover, around 2 in 3 of former Wallace voters would be voting for Reagan in this election, perhaps even 4 in 5.

 

[Aubreyyy]

Reagan would not be arguing for supply-side economics in 1968, and I think a four year stint as a senator is enough for Bush to get on the VP ticket. Remember, Bush was considered for VP in our timeline despite his political experience being limited to one year in the house. Reagan is a good communicator and rhetorically gifted, and will be able to take the blows for his lack of experience by attacking Humphrey's perceived feebleness and submissiveness during the Johnson administration. And Reagan's hawkishness and belligerency towards Vietnam would not be as toxic as once would believe - many people in 1968 would prefer victory over simply peace. Moreover, around 2 in 3 of former Wallace voters would be voting for Reagan in this election, perhaps even 4 in 5.

He might not mention supply side, but politically he was known for being a Goldwater guy and we saw how America reacted to Goldwater. Bush also supported Goldwater in 64 so it could really hurt the republican ticket if that attack sticks. And my point on Vietnam was more that he would be seen as too inexperienced to oversee the war not as too hawkish

 

[Deleted member 180541]

He might not mention supply side, but politically he was known for being a Goldwater guy and we saw how America reacted to Goldwater. Bush also supported Goldwater in 64 so it could really hurt the republican ticket if that attack sticks. And my point on Vietnam was more that he would be seen as too inexperienced to oversee the war not as too hawkish

I'd argue that the landslide in 1964 was less a repudiation of Goldwater's ideology but a product of sympathy for JFK, slander by the Johnson campaign, a very badly divided GOP, and Goldwater essentially giving up on winning the election and just speaking his mind without care for optics. And while Goldwater was a pariah in the 1964 elections, at the 1968 Republican convention he was seen as a hero and received huge amounts of support. Obviously, Reagan running on a Goldwater redux platform will alienate those in the industrial north but I think America was ready for a move away from liberalism by this point, as evidenced by the disastrous 1966 midterms. Reagan's campaign would be one of patriotism and anti-communism which could ring true for a lot of voters. He could conceivably win around 55% of the popular vote. With Vietnam, I think Reagan's outsider status and more aggressive stance towards Vietnam would be seen as a positive amongst voters, not a negative.

 

[Cymraeg]

I'd argue that the landslide in 1964 was less a repudiation of Goldwater's ideology but a product of sympathy for JFK, slander by the Johnson campaign, a very badly divided GOP, and Goldwater essentially giving up on winning the election and just speaking his mind without care for optics. And while Goldwater was a pariah in the 1964 elections, at the 1968 Republican convention he was seen as a hero and received huge amounts of support. Obviously, Reagan running on a Goldwater redux platform will alienate those in the industrial north but I think America was ready for a move away from liberalism by this point, as evidenced by the disastrous 1966 midterms. Reagan's campaign would be one of patriotism and anti-communism which could ring true for a lot of voters. He could conceivably win around 55% of the popular vote. With Vietnam, I think Reagan's outsider status and more aggressive stance towards Vietnam would be seen as a positive amongst voters, not a negative.

Yes, but by 1968 the Tet Offensive had happened and the average American was realising that everything was not going as well as they had been told. I don't think that a more aggressive attitude towards the VietNam war would be tremendously popular.

 

[Deleted member 180541]

Yes, but by 1968 the Tet Offensive had happened and the average American was realising that everything was not going as well as they had been told. I don't think that a more aggressive attitude towards the VietNam war would be tremendously popular.

I think Reagan’s rhetorical abilities and patriotic anti-communist message could galvanise at least a plurality of the public into staying in Vietnam, or at least enough to not significantly damage his chances in the election. I contend Reagan’s aggressive posturing towards North Vietnam would be better received compared to Humphrey’s hesitant and tentative approach.

 

[David T]

I would note that the 1964 Texas Senate race was not really close--Yarborough beat Bush 56.2-43.6 (12.6 points). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas I think one has to give a plausible reason for why Bush would win, not just say "well, we'll assume it."

The other two assumptions are plausbile enough. If Reagan had started earlier, and if a tacit Reagan-Rockefeller alliance had succeeded in getting Nixon to fall short on the first ballot--which almost happened in OTL--the convention could well have turned to Reagan on a subsequent ballot. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ronald-reagan-in-1968.443980/#post-17038433 And if the GOP nomatea Reagan, who had opposed the Cibil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is conceivable that Wallace would not run...

 

[Deleted member 180541]

I would note that the 1964 Texas Seante race was not really close--Yarborough beat Bush 56.2-43.6 (12.6 points). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas I think one has to give a plausible reason for why Bush would win, not just say "well, we'll assume it."

The other two assumptions are plausbile enough. If Reagan had started earlier, and if a tacit Reagan-Rockefeller alliance had succeeded in getting Nixon to fall short on the first ballot--which almost happened in OTL--the convention could well have turned to Reagan on a subsequent ballot. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ronald-reagan-in-1968.443980/#post-17038433 And if the GOP nomatea Reagan, who had opposed the Cibil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is conceivable that Wallace would not run...

I guess Ralph Yarborough can step down earlier. If you look at 1970 senate election it is far closer.

 

[marktaha]

Humphrey- Reagan would have been much tighter than Johnson -Goldwater.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Reagan gets rekt as much as Goldwater and the GOP bigwigs probably purge the movement conservatives, both buckleyites and goldwater/reaganites. My guess is the capital letter Social Conservatives get as marginalized after reagan's 1968 failure the way the wallacites did. Sure, the socons probably do a wallace level third party in 76 and 76 but gradually fade out.

 

[Amagi]

Humphrey would win in a landslide.