WI: Reagan vs Humphrey 1968

I posted this idea on the uselectionatlas forum a while back and I thought I should it here too.

Nixon's "Last Press Conference" really is his last press conference (as a politician at least) and he never comes out of retirement. Ronald Reagan takes his place as the Republic nominee in 1968, with Humphrey still the Democratic nominee and George Wallace not running.

What does the result look like? Is Reagan too Conservative to win or will his Charisma allow him to triumph? If Reagan Wins, what does his presidency look like? On a similar note, if Humphrey wins, what does his presidency look like?
 
I don’t even know how this can turn out. Reagan was governor for about a year at this point so that’s not a lot of experience and he may lose his state because it’ll seem like he was betraying them using the position to reach higher office. Humphrey might actually win unless Reagan does the Nixon sequence vague promises. If Reagan runs openly for the war. He’s not going to do it. Not to mention Wallace is in this race. Perhaps he becomes less of a factor due to Reagan being generally conservative enough without going into Wallace levels. So maybe Reagan wins but Humphrey, I think, wins narrowly.
 
Also, Reagan probably keeps Vietnam going. Humphrey probably goes shorter than OTL but only slightly. Roughly the same time give or take a month. Civil rights may go farther with Humphrey. Reagan probably takes no action and riots go on. Reagan was good in 1980 because in that year with all the turmoil, people were ready for his views. In 1968, yeah he’s not going places and would be rembered terribly. Humphrey might see some vindication depending how his actions go. He could either be seen as one of the best or one of the weakest. I’m not seeing a middle ground.
 
I posted this idea on the uselectionatlas forum a while back and I thought I should it here too.

Nixon's "Last Press Conference" really is his last press conference (as a politician at least) and he never comes out of retirement. Ronald Reagan takes his place as the Republic nominee in 1968, with Humphrey still the Democratic nominee and George Wallace not running.

What does the result look like? Is Reagan too Conservative to win or will his Charisma allow him to triumph? If Reagan Wins, what does his presidency look like? On a similar note, if Humphrey wins, what does his presidency look like?

This is a great question that I have frequently wondered about also.

My gut says that, given the position of the Overton window in 1968 (wherein there was much greater trust in government), Humphrey wins, as Reagan scares off moderates in the North East, Midwest, and West coast.

That considered, it is crucial that we also consider Wallace’s decisions in this scenario. Reagan was very conservative and relatively unfriendly to the Civil Rights movement. That considered, perhaps Wallace does not run, as much of his platform is already covered by Reagan. Either way, Reagan likely does much better in the South than any other potential GOP candidate, and would stand a very good chance of winning Texas (in OTL Humphrey took the Lone Star state by less than 2% of the popular vote).

Another important point to consider is how negotiations with the North Vietnamese go. Perhaps the threat of a hardliner like Reagan coming to power could pressure the North in the direction of a peace agreement. In any case, I doubt Reagan would descend to the level of Nixon by trying to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks. If there is some breakthrough, and a cessation of hostilities follows, Humphrey wins comfortably.
 
I am thinking about doing a timeline along these lines with a 1962 POD. I think Reagan beats Humphrey by a wider margin than Nixon did. I see Reagan taking votes from both Humphrey and Wallace, if the latter even still runs.
 
. . I doubt Reagan would descend to the level of Nixon by trying to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks. .

Page 2:

View attachment 371961
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:H.R._Haldeman's_Notes_from_Oct._22,_1968.pdf&page=2
.
.
[6th line] - Any other way to monkey wrench it ?
Anything RN can do.

Rose - get her (?) Louie Kung-
going on the SVN - tell him hold firm
.
.

-----------------------------------

Haldeman's notes from Oct. 22, 1968

May not have made a difference since South Vietnam’s Thieu wasn’t crazy about the talks anyway.
 
Being Nixon: A Man Divided, Evan Thomas, 2015.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...om, just across from the Oval Office”&f=false

' . . . Shultz would ask the attorney general what he planned to do about the schools in the South. "I am attorney general and I will enforce the law," Mitchell would say, gruffly, puffing on his pipe, and then leave the room. . . "
Later that morning, the group would meet Attorney General John Mitchell, and then later that afternoon, President Nixon himself. This is how the Nixon administration used state advisory committees with both black and white members to desegregate southern schools.

And per another source, apparently they started with Mississippi first!
 
Last edited:
I am thinking about doing a timeline along these lines with a 1962 POD. I think Reagan beats Humphrey by a wider margin than Nixon did. I see Reagan taking votes from both Humphrey and Wallace, if the latter even still runs.

Not if he runs on the same platform as he did in 1980. Humphrey lost because of Vietnam more than anything; if Reagan runs on deregulation and tax cuts and antagonizes unions, he gets the shit stomped out of him and is forever remembered as a fringe whack job.

A sharply different Reagan would be the only one who would win. He would have to run on the anti-Vietnam platform and run on a different means of defeating Communism. He could scale back government but not cut taxes back the way he did in the 1980s.

If he ran on an anti-Civil Right’s platform, that could be interesting, though.
 
It's an interesting question because 1968-1972 saw the labor union demographic begin to swing independently of union directives. IOTL a majority were still following the union line, but by 1972 various factors (I'm going to blame the generation gap, personally) saw a majority swing against the Democrats. This was the birth of what would become Reagan Democrats.

So can he make them swing early? They were on the cusp before. But if I'm right and the breech is primarily about the generation gap (with McGovern seen as kowtowing to younger urban liberals) then they'll probably stick with Humphrey for now. So Reagan-as-disruptor just doesn't happen in 1968.

Looking to the South, I'm not sure having two very conservative candidates and one moderate could *ever* be said to play into the hands of either of the two conservatives. Looking at Nixon's OTL totals as a baseline, Reagan would have a LOT of work to do to take over any of the states Wallace won, with Arkansas being maybe the only target. Texas is a big prize he might have a shot at that went narrowly for Humphrey IOTL. But I don't think even Reagan is willing to make the kind of deal necessary for Wallace to agree not to run. (If he did, he'd be toast for sure.)

How well does the Goldwater strategy play against Reagan four years later? I think that's the pattern everyone sees, and they either say, "these guys are still too crazy for us," or they say, "maybe we should've given it a try." I'm inclined to agree with PresidentZinn, that the Overton Window is going to keep people from experimenting with more cavalier approaches to the Cold War- I really think you need a defeat in Vietnam to prep the nation for that.

So I think a larger percentage of Middle America pulls for Humphrey out of fear with little upside for Reagan outside of perhaps a couple of additional southern states (one of which is probably Texas). There were SO MANY close states in 1968! By my count Humphrey lost eight states by 3% or less. A 1.6% swing his way from Nixon is all it takes to win a comfortable victory. At least that much seems rather likely. A 3-5% swing is well within the realm of possibility and gives him a blowout.

I then have to wonder what happens to the conservative movement with two terrible losses in a row. Does the money stop flowing to those quarters? Do we see refinements in the ideology? Does the burgeoning conservative coalition manage to stay together under the strain?

Reagan's still got a state to run, so he could make a comeback later. Assuming his base of support is there.
 
Not if he runs on the same platform as he did in 1980. Humphrey lost because of Vietnam more than anything; if Reagan runs on deregulation and tax cuts and antagonizes unions, he gets the shit stomped out of him and is forever remembered as a fringe whack job.

A sharply different Reagan would be the only one who would win. He would have to run on the anti-Vietnam platform and run on a different means of defeating Communism. He could scale back government but not cut taxes back the way he did in the 1980s.

If he ran on an anti-Civil Right’s platform, that could be interesting, though.
Candidates try to tailor their messages to fit the circumstances, and Nixon ran on efforts to move the nation's economy more free market in outlook even if his actual policy record was mixed. Reagan was also a movie star, in my scenario, a governor in his second term rather than his first, and immensely charismatic compared to Nixon or Humphrey.
 
Make it simple, Nixon figures he can't win in '68, decides to start planning for 72 or later as the POD. What happens with the GOP if they lose bigly twice in a row with hardcore conservatives?
 
What happens with the GOP if they lose bigly twice in a row with hardcore conservatives?

Nothing in terms of broad trends. Republican far right activists took over the party in ‘64-‘66 and they absolutely despise Republican moderates/liberals. If Reagan loses in 1968 they’ll rebrand, double down, and try again in 1972.
 
Nothing in terms of broad trends. Republican far right activists took over the party in ‘64-‘66 and they absolutely despise Republican moderates/liberals. If Reagan loses in 1968 they’ll rebrand, double down, and try again in 1972.

I REALLY do not see far right “take over” of the party at all in the ‘60s.

Goldwater was a somewhat fringe candidate who won due to a major grassroots campaign, there were still moltitudes of moderate and liberal Republicans in governorships and senate seats, with the Rockefellers serving in such rolls while also being major state party bosses.

The liberal wing of the party survived at least until the Reagan Era, with some bits of it even existing beyond that. The moderate wing was extremely strong back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Hell, they were the GOP holders of the presidency with Nixon and Ford.

I’d say the moderate wing was strong until about ‘94, with Gingrich becoming Speaker and then was much further hurt with Bush Jr., who had run as a “compassionate conservative” governing very far to the right.

But back in the ‘60s and ‘70s?? The Bush family were known for their moderates and liberals and evangelicals and Southern baptists were Democrats and the GOP was far from “far right.”
 
Have you read Before the Storm & Nixonland by Rick Perlstein? They’re essential to this conversation and fantastic reads as well.

I’m not saying the party was far right. I’m saying the far right activists who did most the work were in charge from oh 1964 onwards. That’s why Nixon went even further right, it’s why Ford was primaried by Reagan, etc… Look at Bush’s campaigns during the 1960s as he first tries to win black votes and is a liberal then goes right then more right then calls Reagan’s economics voodoo (rightfully) before more right again to join the ticket. Or Gingrich who lost his first House campaign as a Rockefeller Republican.

There was a steadily falling amount of liberal Republicans (helped along as far right activists primaried them such as talk radio host Avi Nelson against Brooke in ‘78) and a decent number of moderates surviving on incumbency. But not like a lot of them, and they were generally socially liberal and sometimes backed unions but usually fiscally conservative such as Reagan’s running mate in ‘76.
 
I suspect that Wallace wouldn't run, resulting in most of his supporters going to Reagan. This should be enough for a large-ish Reagan victory which more than makes up for the liberal Republicans that are going to either stay home or vote for Humphrey.
 
Oh hey the point of the thread.

Reagan. It’s not a contest. Against RFK he’d lose (since RFK can duck a debate with Wallace in the mix and the Dem base will turnout for him) but as much as the unions would roll hard against the Reagan threat the Wallace vote in the North is going for Reagan and so is plenty in the South. He’ll pull a sound bite friendly Vietnam policy, pick Edward Brooke to keep liberal Republicans onboard and hammer Dems in the North, and Jesse Helms will do his dirty work in the South just like Nixon did it under the radar ‘68.

Dems win on energy and Republicans ruining the country. In 1968 with Humphrey and eight years of Dems they have neither, and Brooke represents a real problem in the North while the South knows full well that shoving Brooke in the VP slot is just like how Dems treat the South in terms of ticket building—a bucket of warm piss in Garner’s memorable quote. An era before Mondale and then Gore (and then Cheney…) transformed the powers of the office.

Edit:
George Wallace said:
“Your reporters will be for Bobby. Your publisher and board of directors will be with Nixon. But your pressmen and truck drivers will be for me”
 
Last edited:
Humphrey wins, especially if he picks a southern running mate (Terry Sanford perhaps). The Country wasn't ready for someone like Reagan, and people also seem to be forgetting, Reagan was sort of an angry radical type in the '60's, not the grandfatherly optimist that was President in the 1980's. LBJ would work hard (if he didn't already in OTL against Nixon) to deliver Texas to HHH against Reagan, as the Great Society's fate would really be in jeopardy with Reagan as President. On top of that, a lot of Northern Moderates that went for Nixon will likely swing to Humphrey as Reagan's economic views might scare them off. With that said, I doubt Humphrey is re elected in 1972, so President (George) Romney or Rockefeller would be a thing.
 

bguy

Donor
Reagan would pick goldwater, rumsfeld or some other hardliner as vp in 1968.

Reagan picked moderates for his veeps during both his 1976 and 1980 runs, so why would he do any differently in 1968? I think Charles Percy would be the most likely choice. Percy is a moderate from an important state, has domestic policy chops, and having lost a daughter to violent crime, his presence on the ticket would help Reagan really hammer home the law and order issue (which is likely to be the dominant theme of the GOP's campaign that year.)

Though for what's it worth, Rumsfeld was actually considered a moderate during the early part of his career.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/close-up-young-rumsfeld/302824/
 
. . . and people also seem to be forgetting, Reagan was sort of an angry radical type in the '60's, not the grandfatherly optimist that was President in the 1980's. . .
Plus, I don't think Reagan would have been distanced enough from his "A Time for Choosing" speech in favor of Goldwater '64, nor distanced enough from Goldwater's anti-social security views.

240px--A_Time_for_Choosing_by_Ronald_Reagan.ogv.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_for_Choosing

I mean, Shit. He just looks like an angry, pissed off type.
 
Top