WI: Reagan in '68?

Humphrey's would win by a close margin. The public are angry about Vietnam, and Humphrey's is seen as Johnson stooge. However, without Nixon or Kissinger, then Humphrey's can still be seen as working for peace (which won't collapse under him like IOTL due to Nixon and Kissinger's alleged involvement), which is an advantage over Reagan.
There is a strong case that Nixon sabotaged the '68 peace talks, although perhaps not a slam dunk. What I've read is that John Mitchell was his main person on point, and that Ann Chennault was the direct contact with the South Vietnamese embassy. I have not read of the Kissinger angle, and on that one I would like documentation.

South Vietnam President Thieu was not all enthused about the talks, and they may have collapsed anyway.

But certainly like to have a re-roll of the dice. If Nixon doesn't sabotage, let's say 30% chance of talks succeeding.
 
Aren't we forgetting the fact that Rockefeller exists? Why are we assuming Reagan beats Rockefeller in the primaries when he couldn't in OTL achieve his "Stop Nixon" campaign to be the compromise candidate? Would Rockefeller run as third party? Or I suppose it would be fourth party as Wallace (who no one in this thread seems to be considering the butterflies on his campaign) was already the third party candidate, in OTL he won 5 states and 46 electoral votes.
 
Aren't we forgetting the fact that Rockefeller exists? Why are we assuming Reagan beats Rockefeller in the primaries when he couldn't in OTL achieve his "Stop Nixon" campaign to be the compromise candidate? Would Rockefeller run as third party? Or I suppose it would be fourth party as Wallace (who no one in this thread seems to be considering the butterflies on his campaign) was already the third party candidate, in OTL he won 5 states and 46 electoral votes.

Rockefeller was just too unacceptable to conservatives to get the GOP nomination IMO. In particular, he had virtually no support in the South. Or rather, the only southern support he had was from the New Orleans Rockefeller for President group, led by a Tulane University history graduate student named Newt Gingrich...To show how hopeless Rocky's position in the South was, consider this: Kentucky was the most "northern" southern state; it had produced moderate Republicans like US Senators John Sherman Cooper and Thruston B. Morton. Yet Governor Louis Nunn told reporters in Miami, "Our delegates know that if they voted for Rockefeller down here they wouldn't be allowed off the plane back home." https://books.google.com/books?id=Tlr7zOjQjOMC&pg=PA243

I don't see Rockefeller being a third party candidate. However, in OTL, there were suggestions of a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket. https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showpost.php?p=10025383&postcount=1 Rockefeller rejected the idea, and decided to stay with the GOP. But maybe if Reagan rather than Nixon won the nomination, Rocky would conclude that with the Republicans having moved so far to the right twice, he had no future in the party and finds the idea of a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket more attractive...
 
I can only see Rockefeller get the nomination if, say, Nixon was shot a bit before the convention, not fatally wounded but badly enough that he can't campaign for the coming months, and throws his delegates to Rockefeller in exchange for SoS. The conservatives will have a conniption fit though. Thurmond will walk out and endorse Wallace.
 
Rockefeller was just too unacceptable to conservatives to get the GOP nomination IMO. In particular, he had virtually no support in the South. Or rather, the only southern support he had was from the New Orleans Rockefeller for President group, led by a Tulane University history graduate student named Newt Gingrich...To show how hopeless Rocky's position in the South was, consider this: Kentucky was the most "northern" southern state; it had produced moderate Republicans like US Senators John Sherman Cooper and Thruston B. Morton. Yet Governor Louis Nunn told reporters in Miami, "Our delegates know that if they voted for Rockefeller down here they wouldn't be allowed off the plane back home." https://books.google.com/books?id=Tlr7zOjQjOMC&pg=PA243

I don't see Rockefeller being a third party candidate. However, in OTL, there were suggestions of a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket. https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showpost.php?p=10025383&postcount=1 Rockefeller rejected the idea, and decided to stay with the GOP. But maybe if Reagan rather than Nixon won the nomination, Rocky would conclude that with the Republicans having moved so far to the right twice, he had no future in the party and finds the idea of a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket more attractive...

I like the idea of a Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket, while not as poetic as the National Union ticket of Lincoln-Johnson it does seem like it would take a lot of the moderates out of the Republican party and instead of the Reagan Revolution being known as when Southern Democrats left for the Republicans it is the Humphrey Revolution being known for Northern Republicans leaving for the Democrats.
 

ThePest179

Banned
Focusing away from the election, how would Reagan handle things in office? What would his domestic and foreign policy look like in the evironment that is 1968-1972?
 
He wouldn't win in the first place.

That's by no means certain, at least if Wallace decides not to run. (People should read Geoffrey Kabaservice's *Rule and Ruin* where he discusses how skillfully Reagan reached out to moderates in California in 1966. He even reached out to labor, boasting that "I also was a leader of our Guild in the 1958 fight against the right-to-work bill. I am still opposed to right-to-work." https://books.google.com/books?id=Tlr7zOjQjOMC&pg=PA190 A "labor for Reagan" committee urged "vote for a card-carrying union man"...)

Anyway, Reagan would probably be less conservative than he was in 1980-88 if only because both houses of Congress will be firmly under Democratic control. (To be sure, there were more conservative Democrats in Congress in, say, 1969 than in 1981, but also a lot more moderate and liberal Republicans--in the Senate for example there were Charles Percy, James B. Pearson, John Sherman Cooper, Margaret Chase Smith, Charles Mathias, Ed Brooke, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, Charles Goodell, Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood, Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker, George Aiken and Winston Prouty.)
 
Alright, if Wallace doesn't run in '68, do you think Reagan could win?

Regardless of Reagan's chances, what could he accomplish from 1968-1972 if he won?

Perhaps this thread will help you out. but if you don't mind me qouting myself here's potential accomplishments:

President Reagan in 1968 is a curious beast. We're a decade too early for supply-side economics so large tax cuts are out. Viet Nam is still ongoing, and with the conclusion of the Tet Offense both the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese regulars are essentially crippled (in OTL, permanently for the Viet Cong). Domestically the Great Society ended as an expanding program with the 1966 midtems.

Let's go down the list. Reagan's Vietnamese options are not bad at the time. Rolling Thunder II (aka a reversion back to the pre-March '68 Rolling Thunder) is almost certainly a go, and with Congress (if not the Senate) quite conservative Reagan should be able to push forward with it.

With General Creighton Abrams's successful prosecution of the war IOTL it seems clear that strong political support and continuing high troop levels (535,000 in December, 1968) would lead to a reinvigorated South Vietnam—in the purely military sense—and additional North Vietnamese defeats.

As with any timeline where the US decides to win in Viet Nam the criteria for victory are limited. South Vietnam is a given and the Viet Cong should suffer the same fate as OTL but the North Vietnamese are unlikely to give up leading to a continuing low-level hot war and requiring an American military commitment on the order of Korea/Japan combined.

At what point can American troops be drawn down? I don't know. IOTL American airpower, funding, and weapons supplied to the South Vietnamese were enough for South Vietnamese regulars to beat their North Vietnamese counterparts. IOTL Watergate cut all three off, and South Vietnam lasted only a couple years.

A larger American force and continuing support should see South Vietnam survive for the foreseeable future. Could North Vietnam accept defeat? I'm unsure, but lean towards "not really".

As always the other main problem is South Vietnam's consistently horrible government.


Setting aside the military question, we return to political support. Can President Reagan win re-election with the war in Viet Nam going well? Where "well" is defined as winning, but with much higher troop levels than OTL 1972. This depends, naturally, on the Democratic contender and how well Reagan's domestic program goes.


As in Viet Nam, 1968 sees Reagan with a fairly wide range of options on the domestic front. Killing the Great Society, or some great part of it, is possible (probable?). Unlike Nixon, who essentially governed as a liberal in order to keep a free hand in foreign affairs, Reagan would probably take a somewhat more libertarian stance. However, as with his OTL Presidency (or his OTL Governor of California performance), this may not mean large reductions in domestic spending.

Reagan in '68 may raise taxes to aim for a balanced budget, and as Nixon attempted may enact some sort of negative income tax in order to eliminate as many entitlement programs[1] as possible. Trading—to Congress—a guaranteed annual income (a liberal wet dream) in order to kill Social Security, Welfare, and so forth would be both bold and incredibly tempting if he was willing to stake his Presidency on it. '68 Reagan may be more willing to take bold gambles being both younger and closer to the Goldwater libertarians.


Finally we turn to social issues. Roe Vs. Wade is looming but for the first term it's all about civil rights. Whereas Nixon exploited the issue for political gain it's quite possible that Reagan takes a stand against it on libertarian grounds (school busing, in particular) or enforces it to the limited extent possible. This won't hurt him in the South—obviously—and would probably prove popular with a number of people elsewhere.

A side effect of ending school busing would be American cities that remained more viable than IOTL. How much would this radicalize the urban black population? Would radical black action swing the Silent Majority firmly into Reagan's camp?

Alternatively would Reagan take another gamble and support civil rights? This would hurt in the South (Texas, for instance, will probably remain Democratic a little longer) but not fatally given yet-stronger Democratic support and may convince some segment of the black population in the Northern cities to consider voting Republican again.


1968 was a key year. Viet Nam, civil rights, blue collars workers/unions, the future history of both political parties, and pretty much the whole culture war (not to mention most political leaders) was born in and around there or that year featured as a major turning point.

President Reagan, in other words, has a vast number of options open to him.



[1] Interestingly Nixon created most entitlement programs by indexing them to inflation, Reagan would almost certainly not take such a step regardless of what else happens. This would leave future US budgeting in vastly better health.
 
Most of you are forgetting that Reagan is a far better candidate than Goldwater and that he navigated to the Presidency in a climate similar to that of 1968. He won't run as far to the right in 1968 than he did in 1980 and I'd think he'd be more charismatic than Humphrey. Reagan has two options available to him for campaign strategies, run against civil rights to try and take Wallace out early to win in the South, or openly support it and try to beat Humphrey in the North. Both are risky; if Reagan fails to convince Wallace to drop out early on (imo Wallace will still run) than he's basically doomed himself. If he runs a "northern strategy" (endorses civil rights, but maybe not busing, picks a liberal Republican senator as a running mate, remains conservative on mostly everything else) he has a chance to upset Humphrey in the big states in the Northeast, but if he comes up short, he is, again, doomed.

In my opinion he'd probably pick the latter option, thinking he couldn't win in the south with Wallace around. Reagan picks someone like Javits or Case as a running mate (There's a precedent for this-Ala Schweicker in 76) and concentrates on winning the Illinois-New York belt. It's unlikely, but very much possible if he makes himself a more appealing candidate than Humphrey.

As to how Reagan can do that, we'll have him be the underdog early on. Reagan attacks Humphrey as a Johnson stooge, which causes Humphrey's lead to fall somewhat. To distance himself from the administration and take back some of the voters he lost after the Democratic Convention, Humphrey challenges Reagan to debates like he did to Nixon only to underestimate him and get trounced (For the purposes of the TL). Reagan picks up momentum from it that narrowly carries him to the white house after the peace talks collapse. (Even without Nixon's meddling, they were on pretty shaky grounds anyway and I don't think its implausible for Thieu to think that he'll get a better deal in a Reagan administration on his own)

Popular vote is something like Reagan 42%, Humphrey 40%, Wallace 17%.

There you go, President Reagan in 1969.
 
In my opinion he'd probably pick the latter option, thinking he couldn't win in the south with Wallace around. Reagan picks someone like Javits or Case as a running mate (There's a precedent for this-Ala Schweicker in 76) and concentrates on winning the Illinois-New York belt. It's unlikely, but very much possible if he makes himself a more appealing candidate than Humphrey.

In 1968? He'd run as a Republican gentler Wallace, murdering Wallace outside the Deep South and grabbing the union blue class voters that backed Wallace/RFK/Nixon in the North. Yes a liberal running mate, but he'd appeal to MARS voters (Perot populists: liberal economically, anti-corporate, anti-free trade, but very racist and anti-government programs that help poor and/or black people) which is around 20-25% of the US electorate at the time.

Basically Nixon with a good running mate. Or his 1980 campaign, albeit much much closer.
 
In 1968? He'd run as a Republican gentler Wallace, murdering Wallace outside the Deep South and grabbing the union blue class voters that backed Wallace/RFK/Nixon in the North. Yes a liberal running mate, but he'd appeal to MARS voters (Perot populists: liberal economically, anti-corporate, anti-free trade, but very racist and anti-government programs that help poor and/or black people) which is around 20-25% of the US electorate at the time.

Basically Nixon with a good running mate. Or his 1980 campaign, albeit much much closer.

By "Northern Strategy" that's what I'm going for-he picks up the Ethnic Enclave voters that were originally for Wallace but went back to Humphrey OTL, and that Vice Presidential nominee Javits gives Reagan New York by a few thousand votes. Unlikely, but I think its plausible if the debate thing happens that I mentioned.

So maybe Reagan 44, Humphrey 43, Wallace 14? (Assuming a Reagan win scenario)


Humphrey wins by a solid margin. Wallace and Reagan split the conservative vote.

...And that's why Humphrey defeated Nixon?
 
By "Northern Strategy" that's what I'm going for-he picks up the Ethnic Enclave voters that were originally for Wallace but went back to Humphrey OTL, and that Vice Presidential nominee Javits gives Reagan New York by a few thousand votes. Unlikely, but I think its plausible if the debate thing happens that I mentioned.

Ah sorry. You included civil rights, which Reagan in 1968 would have been for (Goldwater was, after all, Reagan was just better at dog whistles) but I was thinking of busing, which he'd be against: to his benefit, votes wise, even liberals weren't fans despite what they said in public. So basically the Nixon playbook in 1968 would easily get him elected (which, technically, is the Southern Strategy...).

Which, as per OTL, literally nobody except three British journalists will write about at the time so, like Nixon, he'll easily get away with it.

Unless Reagan was up against RFK I'd consider him at the least in a tie with Humphrey. And, note, not only did he beat everyone he ever debated (even when senile!) but also everyone IOTL that made him out to be "crazy mad bomber Goldwater end Medicare blah blah blah"... they all got their asses handed to them. Actor trumps politician, alas.
 
Last edited:
Top