Talk Elections

Kennedy lives, but Humphrey gets the nom.  He chooses Bobby as his running mate.

Electoral outcome?   Go!!

They win calif and win election.

The trouble is Humphrey needed more than just California to win.  He needed at least two other medium to large states to get to 269.  Winning just CA would have put him at 231 still 38 points short.

I think they'd only pick up IL and possibly NJ.

Leaving aside that being as likely as a Christie/Paul ticket in 2016... I don't think that works out well for HHH. He does get access to RFK's formidable fundraising network and that's about it. HHH bleeds Southern Wallace votes, which could flip TX to Nixon. HHH loses Northern suburban ground to Nixon because of RFK's toxicity there.

From what I've gathered, they didn't get along well.

I could see them working together though for the good of the party. Both RFK and HHH were massive heroes when it came to civil rights.

They could but it's hard to say. Normally a running mate is someone the candidate enjoys seeing everyday. Humphrey and John F. Kennedy would've been a good pair.

Is George Wallace still running under this scenario?

Yes. But HHH and RFK are such a dynamic combination than Nixon loses votes and is in danger of being in 3rd Place.

They wouldn't have to deal with seeing each other every day until after the election, both would be forces on the stump

Assuming JFK is pretty popular at this point, I think HHH/RFK would win decisively in this scenario.

Lol.

Nixon still wins in a close margin

()

HHH/RF 272 WVa, CA, WA, ME
Nixon/Agnew 266 OH, OR, WI

I actually did this map without reading the part where Kennedy lives.

Meaning JFK dies, LBJ becomes President, and does a way worse job than JFK, thus advantage Republicans. Since your map didn't consider JFK living and thus subscribed to the scenario I laid out, your map leans way more Republican than the thread demands due to what you missed and is thus totally irrelevant. Right?

Geez why don't you like me?

Many reasons, but that has nothing to do with this post. All I meant was that HHH/RFK would have been a way less popular ticket in 68 with JFK dead and LBJ President than if JFK was a popular outgoing President. So if you missed the part that JFK is alive, your map is probably not what it would be had you read that JFK is alive, right?

()

Wallace is still in the race?

With Wallace in race, it goes this way:

()

Vice President Hubert Humphrey/Senator Robert F. Kennedy: 312 EV.; 46.1%
Former Vice President Richard Nixon/Governor Spiro Agnew: 181 EV.; 42.4%
Governor George Wallace/General Curtis LeMay 45 EV.; 10.9%

An HHH/RFK ticket in 1968 presents a fundamental problem. You have Hubert Humphrey supporting the Vietnam War policies of LBJ, his boss, and Robert Kennedy, who is bitterly opposed to the war.  Which one is going to change their position?

With Humphrey being the one more likely to switch positions, you would have the Democratic Presidential Candidate opposing the sitting Democratic President's foreign policy.  This would almost force Humphrey to resign the Vice Presidency.  How could the sitting Vice President break with and defy the President, the man who chose him and then handed him the nomination?  This, along with LBJ's intense personal dislike for Robert Kennedy, would have him opposing HHH, his former running mate, and  either urging the Democratic Party organization to sit on its hands, or worse, work against HHH/RFK.

Nixon still wins, and carries Texas.  By the way, just because Kennedy won the California Democratic Primary in 1968, in which Humphrey did not run, doesn't mean he will carry the state in November.  Nixon was from California and Ronald  Reagan was a very popular governor at the time.  California was a much more conservative state in the 1968.  Watch "Dragnet" for example.

With Kennedy living we may not have had the escalation of Vietnam to the point we did with Johnson.

No, the Vietnam war escalation began in 1965.  By the time of the Tet offensive in early 1968, LBJ was already looking for a way out of the war.  His decision not to seek reelection may have had something to do with not wanting to preside over the loss of the war he had escalated.

Nixon's "Vietnamization" plan was designed to turn the war over to the South Vietnamese in stages.  The first U.S. troops came home in 1969 and continued to leave until the last combat troops left in 1973.

JFK had escalted Vietnam as LBJ did, as JFK was the one who actually begun on the American involvement.

However, a HHH/RFK ticket would have been possible. HHH wanted the end the war in 1968, we might have been out there sooner with him. And in domestic terms, both were liberals and would continue and expand the Great Society programs.

Vietnam still would've gone better if Kennedy lived on.

As far as I can determine, this HHH/RFK 1968 scenario supposes that RFK had lived, not JFK.  That being said, it would be virtually impossible for HHH to break with his president's policies on Vietnam.  With LBJ choosing him and virtually handing him the nomination in 1968, a break with the President would be unthinkable.  Humphrey would have been branded a traitor and an ingrate, if not worse, and the rank-and-file Democratic Party would have sat on their hands in the general election.

As for the myth that, had JFK lived, he would have pulled us out of Vietnam, is pure speculation, at best.  While Kennedy did float some trial balloons about abandoning Vietnam after his reelection in 1964, the thought of Kennedy, the ultimate Cold warrior, leaving Southeast Asia to the Communists would cause a national panic.  This was the man who stated in his inaugural address that he  would bear any burden, support any friend, etc. in the name of liberty.  America was a MUCH more conservative nation in 1964.

Those who have put up maps on here need to go back and think if they're looking at this down the end of a 21st Century telescope. For example why's Vermont Democratic? It had a 10% Nixon lead in 1968 IRL and was a GOP stronghold (except 1964). There were 17 other states with a smaller Nixon lead.

Very true.

If it was Humphrey/Kennedy vs. Nixon/Agnew with Wallace as a wild card, I believe the following shifts would have happened:

Arkansas from Wallace to Nixon  (Nixon gains 6)
Georgia from Wallace to Nixon (Nixon gains 12)
Illinois from Nixon to Humphrey (Humphrey gains 26/Nixon loses 26)
Wisconsin from Nixon to Humphrey (Humphrey gains 12/Nixon loses 12)
Texas from Humphrey to Nixon (Nixon gains 25/Humphrey loses 25)

It is hard for me to see many more changes.  A lot of people view the map as it is today, but in 1968, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon, and California were far more Republican in the Presidential race than they are today.  Indeed, Illinois and Wisconsin were more Republican then they are today at the Presidential level, so I'm not sure those switches would have happened.

In 1968, America was sick of the Vietnam War, divided on its resolution, apprehensive of the budding social upheavals and fearful of racial integration.  New Jersey, a primarily suburban state in 1968, swung heavily to Nixon.  RFK would not have made that much of a difference.  Humphrey was unpopular because LBJ was unpopular.

Now if RFK had lived and had been the candidate, that might have shaken things up.

Fuzzy Bear, your reasoning is sound.  An HHH-RFK ticket in 1968 is unreasonable, as I have stated in an earlier post.  An RFK headed ticket in 1968 would have probably closely emulated Humphrey's total,  winning Illinois but losing Texas.

You are right in that America in 1968 was tailor made for Nixon's comeback.  Nixon represented the 1950's and the memory of a more peaceful era.  RFK's message appealed to the young and minorities but turned off the voters of that year, 57% voting for Nixon/Wallace.

I am also convinced that had RFK not been assassinated, he would not have won the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968.  Humphrey had a majority of the delegates committed to him, Kennedy and McCarthy's needed to persuade those committed delegates to change their votes in order to prevent a Humphrey victory on the first ballot. With the sitting President working against him behind the scenes, an RFK victory was not in the cards.

()
Vice-President Hubert Humphrey (R-MN)/Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY): 257 Electoral Votes
Former Vice-President Richard Nixon (R-CA)/Governor Spiro Agnew (R-MD): 254 Electoral Votes
Governor George Wallace (AI-AL)/General Curtis LeMay (AI-CA): 27 Electoral Votes

The election would go to the House, where Nixon would likely work out a deal with Wallace in which all of the electors pledged to him would vote for Nixon and in turn, a deal would be made in which the Senate would vote to make Wallace Vice-President.

I think that Robert Kennedy would make a comeback in 1976, in Jimmy Carter's place, ultimately defeating President Wallace, who would become President after Nixon resigned due to Watergate. By 1980 however, due to the mediocre economy and troubles on the world stage, Ronald Reagan would win against Kennedy, just like he did n RL against Jimmy Carter. From that point forward, history would remain the same.

No, there is no possible way that George Wallace would become Vice President with Richard Nixon as President. Wallace was a fringe candidate, a hate monger and segregationist.  He was unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.  Besides, dumping your Vice Presidential candidate after the election in favor of a losing Presidential candidate makes no sense.  Nixon, for all his faults, had no respect for Wallace and their policies had little in common.

As aforementioned, an HHH/RFK candidacy is untenable, given their respective positions and loyalties.  For Humphrey, the sitting Vice President, to turn on LBJ,  his benefactor, and repudiate his policies is a stab in the back of momentous proportions.  Furthermore, to ally with Johnson's sworn enemy, RFK, would cause a political explosion that would have destroyed Humphrey's and maybe, Kennedy's career.

Nixon, the perfect candidate for 1968, wins easily.

My mistake. Then Agnew wins the Senate vote easily.

No, a U.S. Presidential Election, with no candidate recieving a majority of votes in the Electoral College, would be decied in the House of Repreesentatives, no the Senate.

With the Democrats having a 247 to 187 majority in 1968, it would be reasonable to predict that Humphrey would have won.  Of course, my prediction would have been a repeat of the Nixon victory, with the Democrats losing votes in the South with RFK on the ticket.  I do not see any states that voted for Nixon or Wallace switching to the Democrats with the addition of RFK to the ticket as VP.