Introduction
RICHARD NIXON DEAD
CAR ACCIDENT KILLS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT
--The New York Times headline, March 29th, 1967
The 1968 presidential election and the following several months, known in our modern day as the Winter of Loathing, has gained something of an air of an inevitability in our typical historical texts these days. If you were to read a typical book by my colleagues on the topic--no disrespect to them, of course--you would think that the original system was so bad that something had to give, that it was stupid and could only lead to disaster.

But such an approach to history is never good. Such a reductionist attitude towards one of the most fascinating moments in American history dulls us to just what a perfect storm it was, how every little thing fell into place to bring about the Winter and the collapse of the Electoral College system. If 1968 had been even slightly more normal, slightly more definitive, it would have simply been a close election.

The 26th Amendment and the end of the Electoral College was a positive change that ended an undemocratic system, but it came only after a truly disastrous election. Sometimes, for change to happen, a blood sacrifice is needed.

On that note, I ask you to open your textbooks to page 84, where you will find the 1968 electoral map. I'll also have it up here on the chalkboard, but I want you to bookmark that page so you can refer back to it later. We will use this map as a baseline from which to figure out what happened, and to move our lesson forward.

MeY3Xkz.png


So, there's obviously a lot to talk about here. Let's get started.
--Professor Robert Carlson speaks to his students at the Ohio State University in 2016
0=0=0=0=0=0

I've had an interest in electoral politics recently, as well as the 1968 election, which could be argued to have created the political paradigm we live in today. With Old Soldiers Never Die having stalled indefinitely, I felt I should try a timeline with a more limited scope and based in my area of expertise. I went for Nixon dying in a car crash as my PoD so as to leave the Republicans without an obvious candidate. Simply killing inconvenient historical figures might be a tad cliche, but it's not a big focus of the timeline in any case, so hopefully it works.


Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy this timeline!


(Crossposted from SV)
 
Last edited:
Goldwater and Johnson
Goldwater Refuses to Rule Out Running Again
After poor performance in '64, GOP voters skeptical
--Boston Globe
headline, April 15th, 1967

Barry_Goldwater_photo1962.jpg


So, Barry Goldwater. This man was the Republican nominee in 1964, and he lost very badly. He was just too far to the right for American voters, and Johnson leveraged that very well. So when he said he wouldn't rule out a run in '68, people were pretty surprised.

I want to make one thing very clear here, and it's that he was considering running at this point. He hasn't gone through with it, he's looking at all his options. That's very important. And another thing that will be very important later is this map here.

1964_large.png


Now, I want you to notice where Goldwater is winning here, where his message is resonating the most. We have Arizona, where he's a popular senator, and then all the way from Louisiana to South Carolina, it's just solid red. That's huge, and the reason that's huge is that up until this point, the South had always been reliably Democratic. It had been that way since the 1800s.

So why would the South, after more than a century of Democratic control with only occasional challenges, go for Goldwater of all people when the whole rest of the country rejected him? Because what Goldwater was saying connected to them. And what was he saying? No Civil Rights Act. Now, he wasn't even opposing it in favor of segregation--he was opposing it specifically on a couple of articles he claimed were unconstitutional, and even supported the rest of it. [1] But nonetheless, he was against it, and that was good enough for them.

So if Goldwater could say, "The Civil Rights Act is great except these couple of parts, and because of those parts, I have to oppose it" and win the entire Solid South, the stage was set for someone with much stronger opinions on the topic to take the region.
--Professor Robert Carlson [2]



George Wallace: Will He Run Again?
With LBJ's low approval, Democratic field crowded
--New York Times headline, April 18th, 1967​

Going into 1968, the president, Lyndon B. Johnson, was eligible for another term, as he technically only served one full term after the Kennedy assassination. However, with the Vietnam war dragging on, he was unpopular. People were demanding change, and he was more of the same--same horrible war especially. In 1967, his approval ratings were consistently below 50%, though they hovered closer and farther away from that number throughout the year. [3]


With such terrible ratings, I'm often asked why he decided to run at all and tarnish his legacy, forever to be seen as the guy who just couldn't let go. The reasons, besides the obvious wish to remain president, were twofold. Firstly, he didn't see anyone in the Republican front who could threaten him much. Ronald Reagan was the only person who had stepped forward so far that was anything above "Meh", and his Goldwater-like hardline conservatism made him seem almost poisonous to the establishment.

Second, Johnson didn't see anyone he wanted to pass the torch to. Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were both anti-war, Wallace would turn off too much of the Northren base, and the rest of the likely candidates were simply non-starters. With no heir to the throne, he thought it best to keep it for himself another few years.


However, he knew that he wasn't likely to do well in the primaries. So, he decided to use a crowded field to his advantage and make sure the convention was contested, so that he could be chosen as the compromise. This would turn out to be the first domino in the chain of events that led to the results in 1968.
--Professor Robert Carlson
0=0=0=0=0=0​
[1] OTL source: Goldwater Girl
[2] Assume it's always the lecture referenced in the introduction if the fictional Professor Carlson is cited.
[3] OTL source: LBJ's Presidential Approval Ratings, 1963-1969
 
The Republican Field
Reagan and Goldwater: Two Sides of the Same Coin
150630_GoldwaterReagan-1250x650.jpg


[...] Let me make this clear. If Reagan is nominated, the Republican Party will lose in 1968, and if they nominate Goldwater again, they will lose in a landslide. The American public has already made it clear what it thinks of their extremist brand of conservative thought. [...] Americans may not want Johnson anymore, but they certainly don't wish to have a nuclear war, either. It is clear which one they will pick given the choice.
--New York Times opinion piece, April 21st, 1967

When it really sank in that the best people who had stepped forward so far in the GOP were Reagan and Goldwater, the Republican establishment started freaking out. Neither of them would stand a chance in their eyes. They knew that they needed someone who could extend an olive branch to the moderates and the Democrats without compromising on the Republican party line by being too liberal. So, the search for such a candidate began.

Nelson Rockefeller, on his third attempt at the nomination, was briefly considered, but there were several issues with him, not the least of which was the fact that he was considered too liberal for the current GOP platform. In 1968, the liberal wing of the Republican Party that Lincoln had created was really starting to collapse, and Rockefeller was one of the only people still holding on to it. Even the electorate didn't like him as much as their other options--he was consistently polling behind Goldwater and Reagan prior to the start of the Republican primaries. Besides the liberal leanings, he just wasn't all that charismatic compared to his opponents, and after two failed attempts, he was really starting to get a reputation as a loser, another Harold Stassen.

The best option early on was perhaps Gerald Ford. He was the House minority leader, a moderate with plenty of experience. The party establishment pressured him to run, but he proved to be more reluctant than they had first thought. He wasn't particularly interested in the presidency, not at the time. He had his eyes on Speaker of the House. After a lot of pressure, he made it clear with what we call a Shermanesque statement in American politics. [1] This might be because he was pressured so much--he might have been interested in 1976 or 1980 if he hadn't been basically forced to decide so soon. But that's a matter of debate.
--Professor Robert Carlson

I very much wish you all would stop asking if I will run for the presidency. The only way I will become president is if I am unwillingly thrust into it by an unfortunate course of events and the Constitutional line of succession. Otherwise, I will not run, and if elected I will not serve. I have no interest in being president, and that is that.
--Gerald Ford, June 1st, 1967
With Ford's Refusal, Where for the GOP to Turn?
Voters unenthusiastic about any current Republican possibilities
--Boston Globe headline, June 2nd, 1967

WILLIAM E. MILLER ANNOUNCES PRESIDENTIAL RUN

REAGAN, GOLDWATER, ROCKEFELLER STILL TO COMMENT
--New York Times headline, June 10th, 1967

220px-William-Miller.jpg

William E. Miller, now the Party felt like it was getting somewhere. He was a moderate, so he wouldn't alienate the moderates or salvageable Democrats. At the same time, he was conservative enough not to turn off former Goldwater or current Reagan supporters--in fact, he was Goldwater's VP nominee in 1964. He wasn't particularly well-known outside of New York or his VP run, but that could be solved with some vigorous campaigning. In the eyes of the GOP leaders, he was the best man they could get.

Their task now, then, was to make him win the primaries. This would be the hard part.
--Professor Robert Carlson
Who do you support for the Republican 1968 presidential ticket?
Ronald Reagan: 31.6%
William E. Miller: 31.4%
Barry Goldwater (Undecided): 20%
Nelson Rockefeller: 15.8%
Other: 1.2%
--New York Times poll, June 1967

0=0=0=0=0=0​

[1] Shermanesque statement - Wikipedia. Note that, to my knowledge, Ford never made such a statement OTL. I do think he was far more interested in Congress than the presidency, however, especially at the time.
 
Settin' the Woods on Fire
Who do you support for the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket?
Eugene McCarthy 38.1%
George Wallace 35.9%
Lyndon Johnson 24.9%
Other/Undecided 1.1%
--New York Times poll, Jaurary 1968

George Wallace Polling Ahead of Johnson
Wallace supporters overjoyed
--New York Times headline, Janurary 15th, 1968

george-wallace.jpg

To understand 1968, you need to understand Governor George Wallace. He is one of the most fascinating and most chilling stories of a lust for power and a rise and fall in American history.

If he had been better of a man, he might have been a success story. He was born to a poor family and his father died when he was young. Despite this, he went into politics at age ten--as a page, to be clear--served in World War II, then came back and became a judge. In fact, he was one of the most liberal judges in Alabama. He treated black plantiffs equally, even referred to them as 'Mr.' instead of their first names--that wasn't common at the time, especially in Alabama. So how did he go from that to one of the most infamous racist demagogues in America?

It starts with his first run for governor. At age ten, he predicted he would be governor someday, and that became his dream. So, in 1958, he ran. His opponent in the primaries was John Malcom Patterson, who ran on support from the Ku Klux Klan. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP.

And then he got crushed. He lost the nomination by 34,000 votes.

That's when he realized something about the political climate in the South. If he wanted to win, he'd need to be a racist. That's what the people wanted, and they wouldn't settle for anything else. So he became the biggest racist he possibly could. He supported segregation and he ranted about the blacks.

And then he was governor.
--Professor Robert Carlson


I don't think I'll win the nomination, I know I will. That's what happens when you ignore so many folks in your own party who are getting increasingly frustrated with you. They vote for someone who will listen.
--George Wallace, Janurary 18th, 1968

GOLDWATER WON'T RUN
Refuses to Endorse Until Primaries Are Rolling

--Boston Globe headline, February 1st, 1968
0=0=0=0=0=0​
The chapter is named after the PBS documentary Settin' the Woods on Fire, which is a big source of information on Wallace for this timeline. I highly recommend it. Also, I know the chapter isn't too substantial, but I wanted to get something out. The primaries start next chapter.
 
And So It Begins
Johnson Narrowly Wins in New Hampshire Primary
McCarthy Makes Strong Showing, Wallace Humiliated
--Concord Monitor headline, March 13th, 1968
qMVK37s.png

Purple shows counties won by Eugene McCarthy. Yellow shows counties won by Lyndon Johnson.

--Wikipedia article on the 1968 Democratic Primary [1]

Lyndon Johnson 50%

Eugene McCarthy 40%

Other 9.8%

George Wallace 0.2%

--New Hampshire 1968 Democratic primary results [1]


Johnson made a huge push in New Hampshire right before the primary. He knew that if he was going to have a shot at being renominated, he absolutely had to win that first primary. He didn't take any state for granted, not with such low approval ratings. He knew right from the start that he had to campaign hard.


Johnson ended up winning the New Hampshire primary by the about ten points. Generally, an incumbent should be winning early primaries by much larger margins if it's contested at all. If Johnson was going to drop out, this was the latest it was going to happen. Indeed, there's a lot of ancedotes saying he considered it. But he didn't do it. If it was any closer, he probably would have, but ten points was good enough for him to stay in the race.


Would the election have turned out differently if he had dropped out? Possibly, but I have my doubts. McCarthy probably would have gotten the nomination, and he would have been a bit stronger against Miller, but Wallace was such a major factor. Johnson and the Democratic primaries, however, would act as a sort of mini-'68, and lead to an underappreciated result of the Winter of Loathing--the reform of the primary system. That probably wouldn't have happened if McCarthy was the nominee.


As for Wallace? He was absolutely crushed in New Hampshire. He barely even registered on the results. Now, he didn't expect to win New Hampshire anyway, but he hoped to legitimize himself by taking a good chunk of the vote--ten, twenty percent. Even five percent would send the message that he was a force to be reckoned with and that the Dixiecrats were still relevant.


He took .2. Point two percent. He was humiliated. Afterwards, he denounced the fact that Florida was the only Southern state represented in the primaries, and vowed that if he lost the nomination, he'd run third party. For many, this was the first real sign of trouble.

--Professor Robert Carlson


Miller Wins NH in Landslide

Reagan Campaign viability questioned

--New York Times headline, March 13th, 1968 [2]


0=0=0=0=0=0
[1]This map and these percentages are a bit better for Johnson than OTL. In OTL, McCarthy took home about 45% of the NH vote. ITTL, Johnson campaigns hard while McCarthy underestimates him at first.
[2] Nixon won NH with somewhere around 77% of the vote IIRC. Miller does the same here as the moderate conservative candidate.

 
I have been kicking around an idea for a '68 election based timeline. Curious how others treated it on here and would like to read more.
 
Top