What if Senator Robert Kennedy stuck with his initial decision not to run in 1968? Would Sirhan Sirhan still try to assassinate him? If not, would he be a contender for the Presidency in 1972 or 1976? What do you think an RFK Presidency would look like in the mid to late 1970s? And how would this change the course of American history?
 
Also, shout out to @Bomster who's currently developing a really great concept for an RFK timeline. I was happy to help him with the outline and you should definitely check it out when it's finished.
 

Chapman

Donor
I think if he sits out 1968, he would be a decent contender for 1972. I don't know much about Nixon's personal popularity at the time, but I think Bobby might have a decent shot at ousting him. Or at least, I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have lost as spectacularly as McGovern did at any rate. There's also an interesting question to consider here; would Watergate turn out to be an even bigger deal, and even sooner than IOTL? Given the kind of sleazy tactics Nixon utilized, combined with his disdain for the Kennedys (and the battle scar that was 1960 to remind him), as well as the factor that RFK would (presumably) be a much bigger threat than McGovern, maybe he's even more aggressive here. Leading to, possibly, an earlier exposure of what he was up to. If it becomes clear what had happened before the 72 election, Kennedy should win easily. If not, and Nixon win reelection, but it all still comes out before 1976, there'd certainly be a case for re-nominating Bobby.

I'm also assuming here that RFK wouldn't be assassinated, or at least not by Sirhan Sirhan. Though who's to say that doesn't come later?
 
I think if he sits out 1968, he would be a decent contender for 1972. I don't know much about Nixon's personal popularity at the time, but I think Bobby might have a decent shot at ousting him. Or at least, I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have lost as spectacularly as McGovern did at any rate. There's also an interesting question to consider here; would Watergate turn out to be an even bigger deal, and even sooner than IOTL? Given the kind of sleazy tactics Nixon utilized, combined with his disdain for the Kennedys (and the battle scar that was 1960 to remind him), as well as the factor that RFK would (presumably) be a much bigger threat than McGovern, maybe he's even more aggressive here. Leading to, possibly, an earlier exposure of what he was up to. If it becomes clear what had happened before the 72 election, Kennedy should win easily. If not, and Nixon win reelection, but it all still comes out before 1976, there'd certainly be a case for re-nominating Bobby.

I'm also assuming here that RFK wouldn't be assassinated, or at least not by Sirhan Sirhan. Though who's to say that doesn't come later?

If Nixon wins, he wins much more narrowly. Maybe 52% to 46%. Once Watergate is leaked and Nixon resigns, many will feel that RFK was cheated of the Presidency and he'd be a shoe-in for 1976. He would have been a far better President than Carter (although the same could be said for anybody, to be fair). The economy would have been managed better, and it's possible that Kennedy would have passed UHC and a Full-Employment Act with teeth. Both of these were supported by the more liberal Congress, but conflicts with the more conservative President Carter helped to prevent these from happening. If not, then the US moves in a less conservative direction during the 1980's if Kennedy beats Reagan in 1980. Kennedy could serve as a unifying force who could heal some of the country's social divisions after Vietnam and Watergate. The Democrats also might still have a base in the South and stronger support from Northern workers.
 
Arguably the decision to shoot Wallace actually made the world a better place since it helped him become less racist.

So are you saying that violence towards elected officials can be OK? I think Wallace was awful, but I would never condone crippling him for life as a way to make him "less racist."
 

Chapman

Donor
So are you saying that violence towards elected officials can be OK? I think Wallace was awful, but I would never condone crippling him for life as a way to make him "less racist."

I don't think that's what they were saying, at all. Just making the point that A led to B.
 
So are you saying that violence towards elected officials can be OK? I think Wallace was awful, but I would never condone crippling him for life as a way to make him "less racist."

I'm not saying violence against Wallace was justified, I don't think he meets that threshold, but Hitler was an elected official so yes violence against elected officials can be justified depending on what they do and whether or not they can be removed in non violent ways.
 
How's this for a list of Presidents in this universe:

35. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
36. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

37. Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
38. Gerald Ford (1974-1977)

39. Robert F. Kennedy (1977-1981)*
40. Jimmy Carter (1981-1985)**

41. George Bush (1985-1993)

*Assassinated by John Hinckley, Jr.
**Defeated for election in his own right by TX Senator George Bush.
 
I'm not saying violence against Wallace was justified, I don't think he meets that threshold, but Hitler was an elected official so yes violence against elected officials can be justified depending on what they do and whether or not they can be removed in non violent ways.

Thanks for the clarification, and for not turning this into a flame war which happens all too often on the internet.
 
Top