WI: Reagan vs Humphrey 1968

And everyone, please remember that in 1980, Reagan got 50.7% of the popular vote, Carter got 41%, and John Anderson got 6.6%. Yes, this translated to a much bigger electoral victory, no question about it.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1980

All of the same, at least several political writers have said that Reagan didn't have so much a mandate in 1980, as an opportunity for the conservative economic program to work (it worked to reduce inflation which is very noticeable in people's lives, it didn't do much for middle-class jobs)
 

Did it really start with Wallace in '68?

Now, stand patters might say that most of their opposition was to liberals, agitators, and activists. But they weren't all in favor of African-American citizens receiving a fair shake and first-class citizenship.
 
Watched the first ten minutes, and yes, Ronnie seems very smooth and middle-of-the-road, reminding us of things we all believe in.

But there's other stuff which can be thrown at him, such as Goldwater's opposition to social security in 1964, and presumably his, too. And that's big.
1968 Reagan imo would blow it on medicare/social security/medicaid in a good chunk of timelines with the pod of him running in 68.
 
Well that's complex. As things stand Conservatives are slowly shifting away from "purity" as a core thankfully. Democrats seem to be picking up the torch on the purity focus/moral reform movement nonsense of the religious right without skipping a beat.

IMO the easiest way to avoid purity being a conservative obsession for so long would be 1) avoid watergate 2) avoid the RR by making it be Ford/Nixon/someone else whose DOJ goes after the segregated schools 3) have Reagan either be a failed one-termer in 1976/1980 or serve his 8 years in a more liberal time(1968 like the OP's POD) 4) scramble oarty coalitions by having some sort of universal healthcare put in under Nixon. To do it from the left woudl be EASY -- remove clinton, obama, carter, put in a universal healthcare system sometime before the 80s or 90s 4) keep union power stronger to keep 'profesional' types GOP/keep a union base strong among dems to name a few .
 
. . Democrats seem to be picking up the torch on the purity focus/moral reform movement nonsense of the religious right without skipping a beat. .
I’m guessing that purity refers to such things as “zero tolerance” for drugs. And also the current focus on human trafficking, which is a valid concern, but also results in things like a woman who runs an above average escort service being charged with trafficking, I think right in line with the normal method of overcharging in order to get a plea bargain.
 
I’m guessing that purity refers to such things as “zero tolerance” for drugs. And also the current focus on human trafficking, which is a valid concern, but also results in things like a woman who runs an above average escort service being charged with trafficking, I think right in line with the normal method of overcharging in order to get a plea bargain.
Yeah. Well that and "family friendly" or given the current ideological focus on cleaning up culture being against "problematic"/"whatever-ist" culture.

Since you mentioned trafficking... Don't forget the internet censorship bill that passed in march, FOSTA meant to stop "sex trafficking". The irony is that POLICEMEN weren't happy with FOSTA because it made their job hardder by forcing more secrecy/
 
Here is Ronald Reagan in 1967 in a debate against RFK, and in particular a real angry English student. Reagan at Iowa fundraising dinner, 1967. and Reagan on Firing Line with William F Buckley.

That guy is going to lose to Humphrey with no Wallace in the race?

I’m really not convinced he can do what it takes to keep Wallace out of the race. And I think that if he did take up those policy positions that would keep Wallace from running, he would lose a lot more northern support than he’d pick up in southern support. I think crucially, he’d lose any support from the party elites, who still probably held the bulk of electing power in 1968.
 
I’m really not convinced he can do what it takes to keep Wallace out of the race.

I don’t disagree but the OP ruled out Wallace. I’m assuming Wallace is dead or badly hurt for whatever reason and that in turn caused Reagan to run earlier and lock up Jesse Helms before Nixon does.
 
imo Wallace would stay in the race, so I decided to ignore the OP. Reagan/Wallace splitting each other's vote bases imo means HHH victory in a good chunk of TLs with this POD.

HHH victory: 50% of TLs(These see movement conservatism as a faction within the GOP)
HHH victory big enough to see conservatives read out of the GOP the way Nixon/Wallacite populists were after OTL's mid 1970s: 25%
Reagan victories: 25% of TLs. These would all be close victories.
 
Nixon in '68 ran a very bland campaign with the slogans of "Peace With Honor" and "Bring Us Together", Reagan would have been all but openly appealing to racists going even much further than Goldwater did in '64.
There is a tendency to overstate Reagan's popularity before the 1984 election, Reagan came close to defeat in 1970 with a very unfunded challenger and in 1968 Reagan was losing popularity in California with severe budget cuts to education and other social services.

Reagan would have united the Democratic Party behind Humphrey, and Humphrey could have ran the bland campaign instead and won.
 
1968 was a change election. LBJ's VP was not going to change that.
Goldwater 2.0 could change that. It took a special set of circumstances to get Reagan elected in 1980, most of those circumstances weren't there in 1968.
 
Goldwater 2.0 could change that. It took a special set of circumstances to get Reagan elected in 1980, most of those circumstances weren't there in 1968.
Carter barely won in 1976. There were ample reasons for him to not reelection, such as the primary challenge from Kennedy.
 
Carter barely won in 1976. There were ample reasons for him to not reelection, such as the primary challenge from Kennedy.
Carter barely won because of the many rookie mistakes he made during the General election campaign, some of which I could see Reagan making. Carter, like a Reagan in 1968 would have a mainstream opponent (Humphrey and Ford respectively), and I can also see enough Rockefeller Republicans voting Humphrey or staying home, as I can't see Reagan unifying the party the way Nixon did.
 
Here is Humphrey’s 1968 convention speech. That man will beat Reagan? I love Humphrey, dude was usually right and usually principled but it’s not like he was some exciting candidate in 1968.

Think about what 1968 looked like at the time. RFK & MLK have been assassinated. The Dem convention is melting down, if they can’t run a party how can they run a country? Tons of white people hate civil rights and certainly didn’t approve of MLK before his death. Here comes Ronald Reagan to say we’re going to end the war with honour—not like those liberal hippie peaceniks—because I’ll use Nixon’s secret plan! (or whatever) and by the way I love black people (North), I hate black people (South) and just like OTL the British journalists writing the ATL An American Melodrama will notice the details like radio ads in Southern markets while American journalists miss it entirely. He’ll talk about being an FDR Democrat (wink you know when white people got all the benefits wink) and talk about how important unions are because he ran one in collusion with MCA, he’ll duck Medicare by slamming Medicaid because old white seniors matter more than poor people, etc. Reagan is not some young inexperienced dude in 1968, supply-side doesn’t exist so he’ll run on JFK style tax cuts I suspect (and that’ll be popular), he’ll be Law & Order with Roger Ailes sliding in to run media.

Unlike Goldwater Reagan isn’t going to constantly talk about his crazy ideas (well okay he totally did haha, but I don’t think Humphrey can execute well) because he’s an actor—the first with a million dollar contract courtesy of Lew Wasserman’s MCA—and knows his lines… except that time he dropped his cards in 1980 and didn’t remember the order lol. The Dem base will not turn out for Humphrey, he’s not hip enough and RFK is dead and McCarthy lost. Nor does Humphrey have the killer instinct that say LBJ could have used to beat Reagan—and isn’t that a fun possible timeline!

But yes, all of this needs Wallace out of the picture because really racist voters want to hear the whole shebang not just the coded messages. No Wallace means they’ll settle for the wink and nod routine of Reagan.

20040615b_2.gif

20040615b_3.gif

changing-attitudes-vietnam-war-protests-lg.gif


Edit: I almost forget but one under mentioned detail about the ‘68 election was that the Democratic Party was flat broke, out of money to a comic degree. Reagan and Hollywood money is going to make things even worse than Nixon’s lopsided advantage OTL—25.4 million to 11.6 million or adjusted 2018 dollars of 183.6 to 83.9 million. This NYTimes article from 1971 goes into some detail about all the extra spending past that.
 
Last edited:
. . . Reagan would have been all but openly appealing to racists going even much further than Goldwater did in '64. . .
Regarding Nixon’s 1968 “southern strategy” and the use of code words and phrases:
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...dle class explained Maurice Isserman"&f=false

"The New Deal was designed and perceived as benefiting the middle class,” explained Maurice Isserman.
And the guy goes on to say that LBJ’s Great Society programs were perceived as benefiting minorities, the poor, and other despised groups.

So, the political tactic is to appeal to racist beliefs without being blatant about it. There’s even a third level that if African-Americans, liberals or other supporters of civil rights call you out, you can accuse them of being overly sensitive.

=======

Now, all the same, please take this and tension it with the oft-repeated claim that Ronald Reagan did not have a racist bone in his body.
 
Carter barely won because of the many rookie mistakes he made during the General election campaign, some of which I could see Reagan making. Carter, like a Reagan in 1968 would have a mainstream opponent (Humphrey and Ford respectively), and I can also see enough Rockefeller Republicans voting Humphrey or staying home, as I can't see Reagan unifying the party the way Nixon did.
According to your theory though, Ford should have done better against Carter than Reagan did, but the opposite is true.
 
Top